photoshop_generative_fill

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states side effects ('modifies pixels in selection; may consume Adobe generative credits'), preconditions ('PS 24+ with generative credits; active pixel selection'), and provides the return shape. This is exemplary behavioral disclosure for a mutating 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 compact, uses labeled sections (Use when, Do NOT use when, Returns, Preconditions, Side effects), and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. Every line earns its place without redundancy.

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?

Despite having no annotations and no output schema, the description provides all essential operational context: selection prerequisite, version/credit requirement, exclusion conditions, side effects, and exact return format. It routes the agent to relevant sibling tools for missing preconditions, making it fully actionable.

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%, and both parameters already have detailed descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no meaning beyond noting that a text prompt is used and that the prompt appears in the return object. This meets the baseline for schema-documented parameters but does not exceed it.

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: 'Fill the current selection using Adobe Generative Fill (Firefly) with a text prompt.' It clearly distinguishes the operation from sibling tools like generative_remove or generative_expand by scoping to the active selection. The 'Use when' clause reinforces the exact capability (adding/replacing content in a selection).

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use when' instructions are provided, including concrete alternative actions: create a selection first or use photoshop_select_subject, and check photoshop_get_capabilities for version support. This leaves no ambiguity about when the tool is appropriate.

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