photoshop_save_selection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses side effects ('adds alpha channel'), preconditions ('active document and active pixel selection'), and return shape ('JSON { ok, summary, details: { channel_name, context } }'). It could add more about whether the selection is preserved or cleared after saving, but the core behavioral traits are covered.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core action is in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance, return format, and preconditions/side effects. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 2 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the action, preconditions, side effects, and return format. It is slightly incomplete in not specifying whether the selection remains active after saving, but overall an agent has enough 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context for document_id (activation to prevent UI tab switch retargeting) and channel_name (auto-generated if omitted), but this is largely redundant with the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 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 ('Save'), a specific resource ('active pixel selection'), and the target ('new alpha channel'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling selection tools (e.g., photoshop_select_all, photoshop_deselect) and layer tools by focusing on persisting a selection as an alpha channel.

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 says 'Use when: preserving a selection for later reload or batch workflows' and 'Do NOT use when: no selection exists — create one first.' This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, plus a precondition to check before calling.

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