photoshop_apply_high_pass

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses preconditions (active document, normal raster layer selected) and a side effect (one history step). It also reveals the operation targets the active layer. It could go further by explicitly saying the pixel data is modified destructively and therefore undo/history is the recovery path, but the coverage is solid.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action and purpose come first, followed by synonyms, usage guidance, exclusions, return format, preconditions, and side effects. Every line adds distinct value and none is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the return JSON shape, precondition requirements, unsupported layer types, and side effects. This is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret the result. The main behavior of applying the filter to the active raster layer is fully explained.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, except indirectly through 'radius' appearing in the return details. The schema already documents radius range and document_id behavior, so this is adequate.

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: 'Apply the High Pass filter to the active raster layer.' It also gives the purpose (edge/detail extraction for sharpening or frequency separation), which clearly distinguishes it from the many other apply_* and filter tools in the sibling list. Even without naming a sibling, the intent is unambiguous.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'sharpening via overlay blend, detail extraction, or prepping a high-frequency layer.' It also gives strong negative guidance: do not use on text, Smart Objects, or the Background layer, and points to the rasterize tool as the prerequisite. This is clear routing and exclusion guidance.

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