adobe_extensions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context that this operates on live running apps via the MCP Hub and that dispatched events may be observed by many panels, but it does not disclose permissions, side effects, error behavior, or what open/close actually changes.

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 front-loaded with the core domain and environment, then compactly lists the available operations. It is dense but purposeful; every clause contributes to understanding the tool's scope, though the single long sentence could be easier to scan.

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 multi-action tool with seven parameters and low schema coverage, the description names the actions but leaves important gaps: parameter behavior for data/params and return shape for list/readEvents/hostEnv are not described. With no output schema, more detail about expected results would be needed to make this complete.

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 only 14%, so the description must carry more semantic weight. It maps some actions (open/close by extension id; dispatch/listen events) and implies eventType/eventTypes, but it does not explain the freeform 'data', 'params', or required 'app' parameters in enough detail to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly identifies the resource (CEP extensions/panels) and enumerates the core operations: list, open/close, dispatch events, listen/read events, and get host environment. It also distinguishes one alternative by directing ExtendScript function calls to adobe_runScript, though it does not fully differentiate from plugin-management siblings like adobe_listPlugins or adobe_togglePlugin.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: operate LIVE inside a running app through the Adobe Studio MCP Hub. It also names one alternative explicitly for a related action ('Call a panel's ExtendScript functions with adobe_runScript'), but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance versus plugin management tools.

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