ps_layerOps

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=false, but the description advertises delete, mergeDown, rasterize, and fillColor — operations that discard layer content or vector/pixel data. The description also omits any note about undo, irreversibility, or required document state, so it does not resolve the mismatch the annotations create.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource, which is good, but the bulk of the sentence is a comma-spliced list duplicating the enum, and the format hints (translate/resize/rotate) are buried at the tail.

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?

A 24-action multiplexed tool with no output schema and no annotations covering returns or side effects needs more: nothing here says what happens per action (e.g., newLayer return, whether the active layer changes), how value units behave, or what failures look like.

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 only 33% (only `layer` and `document` are documented), so the description does useful work by hinting value formats — translate [dx,dy], resize % [x,y], rotate deg, groupLayers (names). But it never explains how the overloaded `value` param maps to actions (0-100 for opacity? blend-mode string names?) nor the `name` vs `layer` distinction, leaving real ambiguity.

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+resource ('Photoshop: layer operations') and enumerates the actions covered, so an agent can tell this is the layer-manipulation tool rather than the layer-style (ps_layerStyle) or export (ps_exportLayers) sibling. However, the action list is a near-verbatim restatement of the `action` enum, so it clarifies scope more by name than by distinct description.

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?

No when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as ps_layerStyle for effects, ps_exportLayers for export, or ps_selection for selections. The only signal is the action enumeration, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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