photoshop_generative_remove

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses side effects (inpaints selected region, consumes generative credits), preconditions (selection or auto_select_subject, generative_fill capability), and return format. It could mention reversibility or auth, but for this context it is sufficiently transparent.

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, with the main purpose front-loaded followed by usage conditions, returns, preconditions, and side effects. Every sentence adds value and no fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (generative AI, selection requirements, side effects) and lack of output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, when to use, return shape, preconditions, side effects, and fallback. Nothing critical is missing.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (feather_px, document_id, auto_select_subject). The description does not add any extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 the action (remove content), the tool used (AI Remove tool with generative fill fallback), and the target (current selection). It also distinguishes from the sibling by naming the fallback recipe tool, so an agent can differentiate.

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' sections with a specific alternative tool (photoshop_recipe_remove_distraction). This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool vs. alternatives.

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