photoshop_rasterize_layer

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 core behavior (conversion to a normal layer, implying loss of text/smart-object editability) but does not explicitly state that the operation is irreversible or that it may affect layer styles/filters. The active-layer scope is mentioned, which is helpful, but the potential loss of non-destructive editing capabilities is only implicit.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and its effect. It is concise, with no redundant words or filler, and every word 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?

For a simple, single-action tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It clarifies the target (active layer) and the conversion outcome. The only notable gap is the lack of an explicit irreversibility warning, but the nature of rasterization is well-understood and the tool name itself implies the action. Overall, an agent can correctly invoke this tool with the provided information.

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 schema describes the single optional parameter document_id fully, giving its purpose and usage. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to repeat schema details.

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 verb ('Rasterize') and resource ('the active layer') with a clear outcome ('convert text/smart object to normal layer'). It distinguishes itself from related tools like convert_to_smart_object, which is the inverse operation, and from other layer manipulation tools.

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?

The description implies the tool is for rasterizing the currently active layer, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., when you want to preserve editability, use convert_to_smart_object or edit the text directly). There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the use case.

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