photoshop_sky_replacement

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that native support is conditional ('when available'), lists the active-document precondition, and states the return shape. It could more explicitly describe what happens when native Sky Replacement is unavailable, but the fallback line covers that reasonably.

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 compact and well-structured with clear labels: 'Use when', 'Fallback', 'Returns', and 'Preconditions'. Every line adds useful information and there is no filler.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: when to use it, fallback behavior, return shape, and preconditions. It does not explain how to detect native availability, but the fallback instruction mitigates that gap.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds only minor context, such as 'custom sky' for sky_image_path and 'optional' status, but does not materially improve on the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: replace the sky using Photoshop's native Sky Replacement. It also distinguishes itself from the related sibling photoshop_recipe_sky_blend by calling it a fallback, so an agent can tell which tool does the native AI operation.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' guidance is provided: when a sky image path is provided and native AI sky replacement is supported. It also names the fallback tool, photoshop_recipe_sky_blend, for manual composite, giving clear routing between alternatives.

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