photoshop_generative_expand

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses side effects ('enlarges canvas with generated content'), preconditions, and the return shape. It does not mention whether the operation is reversible or whether it consumes Firefly credits, but the disclosed side effect and return contract are meaningful behavioral context.

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 front-loaded: the core action is in the first sentence, followed by use cases, return shape, preconditions, and side effects. 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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, use cases, return contract, preconditions, and side effects. It does not explain what 'wait' means in the return or how long generation may take, but the essential information for calling the tool correctly is present.

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 three parameters. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable per the baseline. The return shape mention ('details: { direction, prompt, wait }') adds some context but does not deepen parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb ('Extend the canvas beyond its edges') and resource ('using Generative Expand (Firefly)'), and distinguishes it from siblings like photoshop_generative_fill and photoshop_crop_document by naming the outpainting use case. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 gives explicit use cases ('outpainting, extending background, or expanding composition') and lists preconditions ('active document; generative_fill capability'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, but the use-case framing plus sibling names makes the intended context clear.

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