photoshop_content_aware_fill

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It states preconditions (active document and active pixel selection), side effects (modifies pixels inside selection, deselects afterward), and return shape (JSON with ok, summary, details). This is more transparent than most descriptions.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then provides user phrasing, usage conditions, exclusions, return format, preconditions, and side effects in a compact, scannable structure. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: preconditions, side effects, return value, when to use it, and when to use a different tool. No critical operational context is missing.

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 100% and the only parameter, document_id, is fully described in the input schema itself. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 3 is appropriate; nothing is missing.

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 clearly states the action ('Fill the current pixel selection using Content-Aware Fill') with a specific verb and resource, and is differentiated from related tools by explicitly naming when it should not be used (generative remove). It also lists common user phrasings, making it easy for an agent to match intent.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('a rectangular or other selection covers the area'), explicit when-not-to-use conditions (no selection, generative remove requested), and names the alternative tool (photoshop_select_rectangle) when a selection is missing. This is model guidance for tool selection.

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