Run named multi-step Photoshop recipes to remove backgrounds, enhance portraits, apply color grades, prepare images for web, and blend skies in one action.
Run a multi-step recipe by name (ps_catalog category "recipe"): remove_background, enhance_portrait, apply_color_grade, prepare_for_web, sky_blend, …
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | No | ||
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the operation is 'multi-step' and lists recipe names, but does not state whether it mutates the document, what permissions are needed, whether the result is reversible, or what happens on failure.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It is efficient, though the trailing example list with an ellipsis is slightly loose.
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?
The tool has no output schema, no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and a nested `args` object, so the description needs to do more. It gives the recipe category and examples but leaves the argument structure, return behavior, and sibling relationship undocumented.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It clarifies that `name` is a recipe name from the ps_catalog 'recipe' category and gives examples, but it says nothing about the nested `args` object, its accepted keys, or how recipe-specific arguments are passed.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run a multi-step recipe by name', and anchors it to the ps_catalog 'recipe' category with concrete examples. It does not differentiate this generic runner from the many dedicated photoshop_recipe_* siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
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 ps_recipe versus the dedicated recipe tools like photoshop_recipe_remove_background or photoshop_recipe_sky_blend. The description lists example recipe names but does not say how to choose this tool over its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.