photoshop_scale_layer

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states the action and does not mention side effects such as the fact that it operates on the active layer (potentially modifying it destructively), that it requires an active layer, or whether the operation is reversible via undo. For a mutation tool, this lack of behavioral disclosure is a significant gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It contains no fluff or redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse. Every word adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It fails to mention when to use it vs alternatives, what constitutes a valid active layer, or the behavioral consequences (e.g., scaling is non-destructive in Photoshop? but not stated). While the schema covers parameters, the overall context needed for correct and safe invocation is lacking.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters (scalePercent, centerAnchor, document_id) with meanings and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter information, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Scale the active layer by a percentage' clearly states the verb (scale), the resource (active layer), and the method (percentage). It distinguishes itself from siblings like rotate or move by focusing on scaling, and from photoshop_resize_image by specifying 'layer' rather than document or image.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like photoshop_resize_image (which resizes the document) or photoshop_fit_layer_to_document. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an active layer must exist) or conditions under which it should be preferred over other scaling tools. The description is purely functional with no usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.