photoshop_select_rectangle

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key side effect ('replaces current selection') and preconditions ('active document'), which are critical for a mutating tool. It also mentions the return format. While it could detail edge cases (e.g., invalid coordinates), the disclosed behavior is sufficient for safe invocation.

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 highly structured and efficient. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage guidance, return info, preconditions, and side effects in a bulleted format. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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?

Given the tool's relative simplicity and the comprehensive schema descriptions, the description covers all essential context: when to use, when not to use, preconditions, side effects, and return format. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly states what is returned. An agent has everything needed to call this tool 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 each parameter already has a clear definition. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, only referencing the return format and the overall purpose. According to the rubric, when schema coverage is high, baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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+resource: 'Create a rectangular pixel selection from corner coordinates.' It clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from selection tools like photoshop_select_ellipse (non-rectangular) and photoshop_select_subject (subject-based). The explicit 'Do NOT use' clause further differentiates it from a recipe sibling.

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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios ('masking, cropping a region, or preparing for layer mask') and an explicit when-not-to-use case ('subject isolation is needed — use photoshop_recipe_remove_background'). It also states preconditions ('active document'). This gives an agent clear routing logic without needing to infer.

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