lightroom_send_to_photoshop

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects, such as launching Photoshop, creating intermediate files, or whether the operation blocks; nor does it say if the original photo is modified. The wording 'directly into Adobe Photoshop' implies a handoff but leaves the actual behavior opaque.

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, readable sentence that front-loads the core action and target application. It is appropriately concise for such a narrowly scoped tool, though its brevity comes at the cost of operational 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 tool with a side effect (sending a photo to an external application) and an undocumented parameter, the description is not complete enough to enable correct invocation. It leaves out how to identify the photo, what happens after sending, and any preconditions. Although an output schema exists, it does not address these operational gaps.

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?

The schema declares a single required parameter, photo_id, with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The tool description never explains what photo_id is, how to obtain it, or its format, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance beyond an ambiguous 'Photo Id' title.

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 ('Send a photo') and the resource flow ('from Lightroom Classic directly into Adobe Photoshop'), with a specific purpose ('advanced retouching or Firefly AI inpainting'). It is easy to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like send_to_photoshop or export_photos.

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 hints at a use case ('for advanced retouching or Firefly AI inpainting') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export_photos or import_retouched_photo. It also omits prerequisites, like whether a photo must be selected or if Lightroom must be running.

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