Save a Photoshop document in place or export a copy as PSD, PNG, JPG, TIF, PDF, or WebP to a specified path, then optionally close it.
Photoshop: save the document — in place (Ctrl+S) or as psd|psb|png|jpg|tif|pdf|webp to path (asCopy default true for non-PSD), jpg quality 0-12, then optionally close.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| close | No | ||
| asCopy | No | ||
| format | No | ||
| quality | 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?
With annotations covering read-only/open-world, the description still adds real behavioral value: it discloses that asCopy defaults to true for non-PSD output (overwrite-risk context), the jpg quality scale (0-12), and that closing is an optional side effect of the save. It does not state what happens on an invalid target path or whether an unsaved-path save errors.
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?
A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and mode, where every clause (formats, asCopy default, quality range, optional close) carries distinct information. Nothing is redundant with the schema text and nothing could be cut without losing a calling detail.
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 6-parameter, zero-required mutation tool with no output schema and thin schema descriptions, the description covers most decision points but leaves gaps: whether format is inferred from the path extension, what the 'document' param does, and the psb/format-enum mismatch. Adequate to call the tool, not fully 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 coverage is only 17%, so the description carries most of the burden and does cover path, format, quality range, asCopy default, and close. However it lists 'psb' among the formats while the enum omits it, so an agent following the description can pass a value the schema will reject, and the 'document' parameter is never mentioned.
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 (save the document) plus the two operating modes: in place versus save-as to a path. The 'Photoshop:' prefix disambiguates it from ai_saveDocument/ae_saveProject, but it never distinguishes itself from close-adjacent siblings like ps_closeDocument or ps_exportLayers, which matters because the close flag overlaps with them.
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?
The conditional logic is inferable and near-explicit: omit the path for in-place save, supply path+format for save-as, set close to close afterwards. What is missing is any exclusion — the description never says when to prefer ps_closeDocument or ps_exportLayers over the close flag or the format list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.