photoshop_recipe_sky_blend

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses side effects (adds a placed sky layer with gradient mask), undo behavior (single undoable history step), preconditions (active document, file must exist on disk), and the return value shape. This is comprehensive and goes well beyond what the schema or annotations provide.

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 labeled sections and front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. It is somewhat long, but each section (intents, usage conditions, returns, preconditions, side effects) contributes necessary information, and the formatting makes it easy to scan.

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 7-parameter recipe tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers selection conditions, exclusions, preconditions, side effects, return structure, and undo behavior, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all seven parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description references horizon_pct, feather_pct, and sky_image_path in context, but it does not add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 and resource ('One-shot sky composite') and itemizes the exact steps: places an external sky image, adds a layer mask, and applies a horizon gradient fade. It also lists common user intents and names the alternative photoshop_recipe_gradient_fade, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from 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?

Explicit 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use when' sections provide clear selection criteria, including the condition that a sky_image_path must be provided and the fallback action to ask for an absolute path. It also names the specific sibling tool to use for subject-only fading, giving an agent actionable routing guidance.

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