photoshop_submit_feedback

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

Annotations mark it as a non-idempotent write with openWorld access, and the description goes well beyond them by disclosing side effects (persists a local cooldown flag, may send an anonymous analytics event), preconditions (none), and the return shape { ok, recorded, next }.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by clearly labeled blocks (Use when, Do NOT use when, Returns, Preconditions, Side effects) with no wasted prose. Every sentence carries actionable information.

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 two-parameter side-effecting tool with no output schema, the description covers triggering condition, exclusions, preconditions, side effects, and the return shape, plus the post-call instruction to resume the original request. Nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the enum values already carry their own meanings (yes/not_now/dont_ask, suggestion text), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which matches the baseline 3 when coverage is complete.

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?

States a specific verb (Record) and resource (the user's answer to a Photoshop MCP product-feedback nudge), which no sibling tool covers. An agent can immediately tell this is not a Photoshop editing operation like the rest of the family.

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' ties invocation to photoshop_ping returning a FEEDBACK_NUDGE block and to having already asked via the host question UI. 'Do NOT use when' forbids inventing the question, and it warns not to start implementing the suggestion — genuine negative guidance.

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