send_to_photoshop

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects and prerequisites. It only says the photo is 'sent' to Photoshop; it does not explain whether a copy is created, whether Photoshop must already be installed, whether Lightroom blocks waiting for the edit, or what happens to the original photo.

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?

One concise sentence that front-loads the core action and destination, then adds the purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 single-required-parameter action with an output schema, the description is barely adequate: an agent can infer that photo_id selects the photo and that the result appears in Photoshop. However, it omits prerequisites, side-effect behavior, and any round-trip workflow guidance, which leaves meaningful 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention photo_id at all. The single parameter is somewhat self-explanatory from its name, but the description adds no explicit guidance about how to identify the photo, accepted formats, or behavior when the photo is invalid.

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 a specific action ('send'), resource ('a photo from Lightroom Classic'), and destination ('directly into Adobe Photoshop'), plus two concrete use cases ('advanced retouching or Firefly AI inpainting'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_photos, import_photos, and develop-related tools.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when a photo needs to go into Photoshop for retouching or Firefly inpainting. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it stops just short of a fully explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guide.

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