photoshop_save_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key side effect ('writes file to disk'), preconditions ('active document; path required'), and return value ('confirmation with saved path and format'). It does not mention overwrite behavior, but the disclosed side-effect information is still meaningfully transparent.

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 tightly structured with labeled sections for use case, non-use case, returns, preconditions, and side effects. It front-loads the core action and contains no filler or redundant detail.

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 save tool, the description covers purpose, when to use, when not to use, return behavior, preconditions, and side effects. The remaining gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from the closely related sibling photoshop_export_as, which an agent might need to route 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only mentions the format options and required path, both of which are already present in the schema. It adds no additional meaning about quality or document_id, but the schema already documents those parameters adequately.

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 clearly states a specific verb, resource, and formats: 'Save the active document to disk in PSD, JPEG, or PNG format.' It also explicitly distances itself from photoshop_recipe_prepare_for_web. However, it does not differentiate from the similarly named sibling photoshop_export_as, which may also handle export-style requests, so it stops short of a 5.

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, a 'Do NOT use when' condition, and names the alternative tool photoshop_recipe_prepare_for_web. This gives an agent clear routing guidance without needing to infer when the tool is appropriate.

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