photoshop_convert_to_smart_object

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and meets it: it discloses the return JSON shape, preconditions (active document; layer selected or named), side effects (one history step), and the idempotent edge case (already_smart_object success flag). This is unusually complete behavioral disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Well-structured with labeled sections that each earn their place: core purpose first, then aliases, usage rules, return format, and preconditions/side effects. Zero redundancy; the 'Users often say' line adds matching value rather than padding.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by specifying the return JSON and side effects. The only gaps are error behavior for the excluded cases (background layer, layer not found when layer_name is given), which are implied but not explicitly stated.

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%, so both parameters (layer_name, document_id) are already fully described in the input schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds only marginal param value — mapping 'named layer' to layer_name and reiterating the selection precondition — without introducing new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Convert the active layer (or a named layer) to an embedded Smart Object') and the qualifier 'embedded' distinguishes it from the sibling photoshop_create_smart_object_via_copy. The explicit exclusion 'Do NOT use when: the layer is already a Smart Object' further separates it from edit/replace smart-object tools. Natural-language aliases aid agent intent matching.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('non-destructive transforms/filters are needed on a raster or shape layer') and two explicit when-not-to-use conditions (already a Smart Object; background layers). However, it never names the alternative tools (e.g., photoshop_edit_smart_object_contents or photoshop_rasterize_layer), stopping short of full alternative routing.

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