photoshop_set_text_alignment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not disclose side effects (e.g., modifying the document), error conditions (e.g., if no text layer is active), or the fact that it activates the document when document_id is provided. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and target. While it is minimal, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could include more guidance without becoming verbose.

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 simplicity (2 parameters, no output schema) and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand when to invoke it and what the consequences are. It omits prerequisites (active text layer), error behavior, and the document_id option's effect. The description leaves too much to inference.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema. The alignment enum is self-explanatory, and document_id has a detailed description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 the action: setting text alignment on the active text layer. It specifies the resource (text layer) and the operation, which distinguishes it from other layer operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling text tools like set_text_font or set_text_color, though the property name 'alignment' makes it obvious. The verb 'Set' is specific, so it's clear what it does.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites like having a text layer active, nor does it note when a different tool (e.g., update_text_content) would be appropriate. The description only states the function without context or exclusions.

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