photoshop_desaturate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states that the active layer is desaturated but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether the original color data is preserved, whether it is reversible via undo, or any side effects. For a pixel-mutating tool, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, compact sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, making it immediately scannable and easy to parse.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the operation. However, it omits prerequisite context (e.g., requires an open document) and any mention of result or undo behavior. These gaps are minor given the tool's simplicity, but a note on reversibility would improve completeness.

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 single parameter document_id is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), explaining its purpose and when to set it. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 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 action (desaturate), the resource (active layer), and clarifies the result (convert to grayscale). This distinguishes it from siblings like photoshop_invert (color inversion) and photoshop_adjust_hue_saturation (controlled saturation adjustment).

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 implies usage by naming the target ('active layer'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. There is no guidance on selecting between this and other color-adjustment tools.

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