photoshop_create_text_layer

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It states 'Preconditions: active document' and 'Side effects: adds text layer', and lists return fields. It does not detail every edge case or the document-switching behavior of document_id, but the schema already covers that, and the transparency is adequate.

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 clearly segmented with scannable labels: Use when, Do NOT use when, Returns, Preconditions, Side effects. Every sentence adds operational value; the repetition of 'adds text layer' is minor and does not hurt readability. It front-loads the core purpose.

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 having no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, return fields, preconditions, and side effects. It does not define 'context' or enumerate error conditions, but given the already-rich input schema and the referenced sibling tools, the remaining gaps are minor. It is complete enough for correct invocation.

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's mention of 'optional font' and font-related tool references adds a little guidance, but it mostly restates schema information rather than enriching parameter meaning. Therefore baseline 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 opening sentence names the verb (create), the resource (text layer), and the key inputs (content, position, font size, optional font). The 'Do NOT use when' line distinguishes it from photoshop_update_text_content, so an agent can separate create from edit. This is specific and sibling-aware.

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 provides an explicit 'Use when' scope (adding labels, titles, or typography) and a 'Do NOT use when' condition with the alternative tool (editing existing text -> photoshop_update_text_content). It also routes to photoshop_list_fonts and photoshop_set_text_font for related font operations. This leaves little ambiguity about when to invoke the tool.

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