photoshop_generate_from_datasets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses side effects ('writes files to output_dir'), preconditions, and the return JSON structure. However, it doesn't state whether the active document is left in its original state after each data set is applied, or if the process is destructive to the document state – a minor gap for a mutation-style tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides analogies, usage conditions, return info, and side effects in a logical order. It's slightly longer than necessary but every sentence contributes value. The structure aids quick scanning.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational contract: what it does, when to use it, what it returns, and side effects. It leaves out details about document state and error handling, but the presence of a clear return format and preconditions makes it fairly complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond the schema – it mentions output_dir only indirectly in the side effects and doesn't clarify format or dataset_names further. It's acceptable but not additive.

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 precise verb–resource pair: 'Batch-export the active document once per data set'. It adds the 'Mail merge for images' analogy and user phrasing ('generate all variants'), making the intent unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like photoshop_export_as which exports a single static file.

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 explicitly states when to use ('data sets are already imported... and you want one file per row') and gives preconditions ('active document with data sets'). It also references the prerequisite tool (photoshop_import_datasets), which is a clear routing signal. No alternative is mentioned, but the condition is specific enough that an agent won't confuse it with other batch operations.

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