Close a Photoshop document, optionally saving changes first: set save to true to save, otherwise edits are discarded; omit the document name to target the active document.
Photoshop: close a document — save:true saves first, otherwise changes are discarded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| save | No | ||
| document | No | Document name; omit for the active document. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows closing can destroy changes. The description adds valuable context beyond that: save:true saves first, otherwise changes are discarded. This directly explains the destructive behavior and the key parameter interaction. It does not cover error cases or default behavior when save is omitted, but it is strong for this simple tool.
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 zero waste. It conveys the app context, action, and critical save behavior 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-parameter tool with destructive annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: closing, saving first if requested, and discarding changes otherwise. The only minor gap is that it does not state the default when save is omitted, but the agent has enough to use the tool correctly.
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 50% because only the document parameter has a description. The description compensates well by explaining the save parameter's meaning: true saves before closing, otherwise changes are discarded. It does not explicitly state the default when save is omitted, but the core semantics are clear.
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: 'close a document' in Photoshop. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ps_saveDocument (saves without closing) and ai_closeDocument (different application). No ambiguity about the core action.
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?
Usage is implied by the tool name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose close-with-save versus close-without-save, or when to use ps_closeDocument instead of ps_saveDocument. The save parameter behavior is stated, which gives some context, but alternatives and exclusions are absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.