xapp_photoshopToAE

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: it saves the PSD (a write side effect), layers map 1:1, and layer styles remain editable. It omits whether both apps must be running and error behavior, so not a 5.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence with the workflow described first and the use-case hint last; no filler. The em-dash appendage is slightly crammed but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema and 5 loosely-constrained optional parameters, the description covers the core workflow but leaves gaps: what happens if no PSD is open, whether AE must be launched first, and what the result looks like. Adequate but not fully self-sufficient.

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 20% across 5 parameters. The description clarifies document ('active or named'), psdPath implicitly (save location), and targetComp ('optionally adding it into a target comp'), but leaves openComp and croppedLayers unexplained. Partial compensation, so a middling score.

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 specific verbs and resources: saves the active or named PSD and imports it into AE as a layered composition, with layer-mapping semantics spelled out. An agent can clearly distinguish this cross-app bridge from siblings like ae_importFile or ps_exportLayers.

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 a concrete context ('ideal for parallax / paper-cut animations') and notes the target-comp option, which implies when to use it. However, it does not name when to prefer the manual alternative (ps_exportLayers + ae_importFile) or state prerequisites/preconditions.

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