Add a vector text layer to the active Photoshop document with control over font, size, color, justification, and position.
Create a vector typography Text Layer in the active document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | ||
| x_px | No | ||
| y_px | No | ||
| color_hex | No | FFFFFF | |
| font_name | No | Helvetica | |
| font_size_pt | No | ||
| justification | No | left |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that a new Text Layer is created in the active document, but does not state whether it requires an open document, what happens on undo/redo, where the layer is positioned, or any other mutation side effects.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for its purpose and immediately communicates the core action.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, 7 parameters, and no schema descriptions, the description is too thin. It mentions creating a Text Layer in the active document but omits parameter details, prerequisites, and side effects. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description remains incomplete for correct invocation.
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 input schema has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no parameter meaning. It does not explain text, x_px, y_px, color_hex, font_name, font_size_pt, or justification, leaving the schema titles and defaults as the only available clues.
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 (Create) and resource (Text Layer) with scope (active document) and type (vector typography). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling photoshop_create_layer tool.
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 implies the tool is used to add text to the active document, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as photoshop_create_layer or how it relates to other layer tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.