photoshop_create_document

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the side effect ('makes it active'), returns (id and name), and preconditions (none). This goes well beyond a generic 'creates a document'; a small gap is that it doesn't explicitly state what happens to any currently open document, though 'makes it active' implies the new one becomes the active tab.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, followed by labeled 'Use when', 'Do NOT use when', 'Returns', 'Preconditions', and 'Side effects' lines. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important info is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: usage, returns, side effects. The one oddity is the `document_id` parameter, which is not mentioned in the description; while the schema explains it, the description could briefly note that it only activates an existing document before creation. This is a minor gap, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

The schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no per-parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither improves nor degrades the baseline.

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 action ('Create a new empty Photoshop document') with explicit scope (dimensions and color mode) and differentiates from the sibling `photoshop_open_image` by naming when NOT to use it. This makes the tool's purpose instantly distinguishable from its siblings.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use when' guidance is provided, including a direct pointer to the alternative tool (`photoshop_open_image`) for opening existing files. No guesswork is left for the agent.

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