Save the active Photoshop document in place or to a new path and format. Use it to create a copy before irreversible steps such as flattening, merging, or overwriting.
Save the active document (optionally to a new path / format). Save a copy before irreversible steps (flatten, merge, overwrite).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | absolute path; omit to save in place | |
| format | No | PSD | JPEG | PNG |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully flags the destructive context (flatten/merge/overwrite) motivating a copy, but does not state that omitting path overwrites the active document in place, whether a format change alters the document (e.g., merges layers), or what the call returns.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler; the core action leads and the cautionary use case follows immediately.
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 simple two-optional-parameter tool this covers the essentials, but with no annotations and no output schema the description leaves important unknowns: in-place overwrite behavior, whether format conversion is lossy, and the result of the call.
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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description only restates them as 'optionally to a new path / format'. No additional syntax, format-tradeoff, or default behavior is supplied beyond the schema baseline of 3.
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?
States a specific verb and resource (save the active document) plus the optional scope of new path/format. It does not differentiate itself from the near-identical sibling photoshop_save_document, which is a real ambiguity, so it stops 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?
Gives an explicit usage context: use it to save a copy before irreversible steps such as flatten, merge, or overwrite. It does not name alternative tools (photoshop_export_as, ps_export_frame, photoshop_save_document) or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the explicit-alternatives bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.