photoshop_generate_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose preconditions (generative_fill capability and Adobe credits) and the return shape, which is useful. However, it does not clarify side effects on an active document, such as whether a new layer is created or existing content is replaced.

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 well-structured: a one-line definition, a use-when clause, return shape, and preconditions. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 description includes the use case, document scope, return format, and preconditions, which covers most operational needs. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternative sibling tools, but it is still mostly complete for a straightforward text-to-image operation.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal param-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 'Generate image content from a text prompt (text-to-image)', giving a specific verb, resource, and mode. It also scopes the operation to blank or active documents. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the text-to-image framing helps distinguish it from related generative tools.

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 'Use when: creating new imagery from a description' line provides clear context for when the tool should be used. It does not provide explicit exclusions or mention alternative tools, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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