photoshop_import_datasets

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 the target of the operation (active document), the precondition, and the return shape. However, it does not state whether importing replaces/merges existing datasets in the document, whether the operation is reversible via undo, or how the active-document requirement interacts with document_id activation. Some behavioral context is present, but not the full mutation picture.

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?

Well-organized with labeled sections (core statement, user phrasings, when to use, returns, preconditions), front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence earns its place — the 'Users often say' line supports query matching, and the exclusion clause prevents mis-selection. No wasteful prose.

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 a 2-param tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description fills the important gaps: it explains the return format (JSON with ok/summary/details), states preconditions, and differentiates among a very large sibling family (100+ tools). Minor gap: it doesn't specify whether existing datasets are overwritten or merged upon import, which an agent would want to know before calling.

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 both parameters are already well-documented. The schema's document_id explanation is unusually thorough (explains why it activates the document to avoid UI tab-switch issues). The description adds only marginal context about the 'active document' requirement already implied by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the param documentation weight.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Import a Photoshop variables/data-sets XML file into the active document', and anchors it to the exact UI menu path (Image > Variables > Data Sets > Import) for precision. The synonym list ('load data sets, import variables XML') helps match varied user phrasing, and the CSV/batch alternative is explicitly named as the thing this tool is not.

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' (template PSD has variable-bound layers and you want to load XML rows) and 'Do NOT use when' (generating a batch from CSV directly) conditions, naming the alternative photoshop_recipe_csv_to_cards. It also states the precondition (active document with variables defined), leaving no ambiguity about when to select this over its siblings.

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