photoshop_edit_smart_object_contents

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It states the side effect that the active document switches to the embedded .psb, instructs that save/close is required to return, and specifies the JSON return shape plus preconditions.

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-structured and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence. Sections for user phrasing, usage guidance, return format, preconditions, and side effects each earn their place without unnecessary 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?

The tool is fully specified for an agent: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, what to avoid, what it returns, what must be true beforehand, and what state changes occur. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly provides the return structure.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds useful operational context by stating that a Smart Object layer must be active or named, which clarifies when layer_name is needed. The schema already explains document_id's activation behavior, so the extra contribution is moderate but meaningful.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Open a Smart Object for editing' and clarifies it operates on the embedded .psb. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling photoshop_replace_smart_object_contents, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use when' guidance, directly naming the alternative tool for replacement. It also lists preconditions, making it clear when this tool is appropriate versus when a sibling should be chosen.

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