photoshop_recipe_prepare_for_web

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it fully discloses behavior: it duplicates, converts to sRGB, downscales, sharpens, saves, leaves the source untouched, writes one file, and requires an active document. It also lists the return object, so the agent knows the outcome shape. No behavioral surprises.

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 with clear headings ('Use when', 'Do NOT use when', 'Returns', 'Preconditions', 'Side effects') and front-loads the core action. Each sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers preconditions (active document), side effects (one file written, source unchanged), return format, format choices, and parameter semantics. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and predict the outcome.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: it explains path resolution (absolute vs relative to ~/.photoshop-mcp/exports), the purpose of document_id (activates the document to prevent retargeting), and that quality is ignored for png. This goes beyond what the schema states.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource pair ('Export a web-optimized version of the active document') and enumerates the concrete pipeline steps (duplicate, sRGB, downscale, sharpen, save). It explicitly names the sibling it is not (photoshop_recipe_export_social_variants) and explains the boundary (multiple platform-specific exports), so an agent can distinguish it without inspecting other 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?

Contains explicit 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use when' sections, naming the alternative tool for the wrong case and explicitly warning against calling photoshop_save_document afterwards because the recipe already writes the file. This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke it and what not to do.

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