photoshop_contract_selection

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't state whether this requires an active selection to exist, what happens if no selection is present, whether the operation is destructive or reversible (undoable), or any side effects. Only the basic action is described.

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?

Single, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words.

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 selection-modifying operation with no annotations and an output schema that presumably captures return values, the description omits prerequisites (active selection), edge cases (no selection, pixels too large), and behavioral traits an agent would need to call it correctly.

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 single parameter 'pixels' is undocumented in the schema. The description implies the parameter controls the contraction distance, adding minimal semantic value over the parameter name.

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 ('Contract') and resource ('active selection') with a clear direction ('inwards by specified pixels'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'photoshop_expand_selection' by direction, though it doesn't name it explicitly.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives like photoshop_expand_selection or photoshop_feather_selection. The direction is implied but no explicit selection criteria or context is provided.

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