photoshop_recipe_frequency_separation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and succeeds. It discloses the key limitation ('Does not apply any smoothing itself'), the actionable side effect ('appends a Frequency Separation layer group with 2 prepared layers'), undo behavior, and preconditions ('active document with a NORMAL raster active layer'). This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.

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 and front-loaded: purpose first, then user phrasing, then when-to-use/exclusions, then returns, preconditions, and side effects. Each section earns its place, and the 'Users often say' line adds phrase-matching value for intent detection without bloating the text.

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?

Despite no output schema or annotations, the description provides the return shape, preconditions, side effects, and usage boundaries. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly and to set user expectations about the non-destructive, manual-retouching workflow.

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%, and the schema already provides detailed semantics for radius_px (default, range, suggested values) and document_id (source and purpose). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 for full coverage 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Build a frequency separation stack (Low + High) on top of the active layer'. It clarifies the intended workflow ('hands-on retouching') and explicitly notes what it does not do ('Does not apply any smoothing itself'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like photoshop_recipe_enhance_portrait without ambiguity.

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 explicitly provides a 'Use when' condition ('user explicitly wants frequency separation setup') and a 'Do NOT use when' exclusion with a named alternative ('use photoshop_recipe_enhance_portrait instead'). This is exactly the guidance an agent needs to select correctly among many recipe siblings.

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