photoshop_create_smart_object_via_copy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses preconditions ('Smart Object layer active or named'), side effects ('adds a new Smart Object layer'), and the return shape. The 'unlinked duplicate' phrasing clarifies the independence behavior. It could also mention that the original is untouched, but the independence statement covers this implicitly.

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 well-organized with line breaks, front-loading the core action. The 'Users often say' list is slightly extra but useful for natural-language matching, and every other sentence (usage, return, preconditions, side effects) earns its place. Not overly verbose for the amount of context it provides.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description includes the return JSON shape, preconditions, side effects, and alternative routing. For a tool with two optional parameters and clear semantics, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates what the schema already says (optional layer name defaults to active layer, document_id activates the document). It adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Create an independent Smart Object via Copy — unlinked duplicate with its own embedded contents.' It explicitly differentiates from sibling photoshop_duplicate_layer by noting the difference between linked and independent instances, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use when' clauses that name the alternative tool (photoshop_duplicate_layer). This leaves no ambiguity about the appropriate context for selecting this tool over its siblings.

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