photoshop_image_stack

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses side effects (opens files, stacked result becomes active document), preconditions (2+ existing image files), return shape, and the non-generative nature of the operation. It does not detail potential failure modes or constraints like matching image dimensions, but the main behavioral traits are covered.

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 well-structured with clear sections for use cases, exclusions, return value, and side effects. The user-phrase block is slightly redundant but still useful for intent matching; overall every section earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains the return format and provides preconditions and side effects. It covers the core context an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly, though it could add a note that the input images should be aligned or similarly sized for meaningful stack results.

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 thoroughly. The description reinforces the semantic difference between median and mean and repeats the min-2 file requirement, but adds little beyond what the schema already states.

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 operation: load 2+ image files, convert to a smart object, and apply a statistical stack mode. It clearly distinguishes itself from generative tools by saying 'no generative AI involved' and by naming the classic use cases like 'remove tourists' and noise reduction.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use when' guidance, naming the alternative tools photoshop_generative_remove and photoshop_content_aware_fill for single-object removal. It also lists common user phrasings, making it easy for an agent to recognize when this tool is requested.

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