photoshop_recipe_organize_layers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it guarantees no destructive operations, states side effects precisely ('renames top-level layers and optionally moves them into kind-grouped folders'), and notes that one undo reverts everything. It also declares the active-document precondition.

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: a one-sentence core, clear when/not-when guidance, return shape, preconditions, and side effects. Every section earns its place, and the most important safety behavior is front-loaded ('Never deletes, merges or rasterizes').

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs: return shape, preconditions, side effects, exclusion criteria, and behavior boundaries. It is complete enough to select and invoke correctly without further inference.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only modest extra meaning for parameters, e.g., 'recipe only summarizes text layers' clarifies content_summary behavior, and 'top-level layers' clarifies scope of grouping, but the schema already documents all three parameters with clear defaults and meanings.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Tidy the active document's layer stack: rename layers using a consistent scheme and optionally auto-group them by kind.' It clearly distinguishes this recipe tool from single-layer tools like photoshop_rename_layer by stating it operates on the whole stack and never deletes, merges, or rasterizes.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use when' sections give concrete triggers ('user complains about layer mess') and exclusions ('smart, semantic naming based on layer content beyond text'). This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool over alternatives.

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