Inverts the active selection, swapping the selected area with its inverse to target the rest of the image.
Invert the current selection
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| document_id | No | Optional Photoshop document id from photoshop_get_state / photoshop_list_documents. When set, the tool activates that document before running so a UI tab switch cannot retarget the edit. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior beyond the one-line action. It does not disclose that it swaps selected and unselected regions, whether it affects pixels, what happens with no active selection, or that it mutates selection state as opposed to document content.
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 very short and contains no filler; every word contributes to the purpose. However, it is arguably under-specified for behavioral and usage guidance, so it earns high marks for brevity without achieving full completeness.
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?
The tool is simple and has only one optional parameter, so the minimal description is close to adequate. Still, for an AI agent it lacks essential context: when the operation is appropriate, how it interacts with the current selection, and whether it is safe/non-destructive to pixel content.
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?
The only parameter, `document_id`, is already fully described in the input schema with its source and purpose. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to repeat parameter detail; the baseline of 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb ('invert') and a clear resource ('current selection'), unambiguously identifying the operation. The sibling tool `photoshop_invert` is implicitly distinguished by the 'selection' qualifier, and the action is distinct from other selection-manipulation siblings.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `photoshop_select_all`, `photoshop_deselect`, or `photoshop_invert`. There is no mention of prerequisites like an active selection, nor any explicit or implicit note about when this selection operation is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.