photoshop_execute_custom_jsx

Does 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 does not disclose that this runs arbitrary, unsandboxed code with unrestricted access to the document, that effects may be irreversible, or that errors inside the script are surfaced however they are. 'Full JSON serialization' hints at return handling but nothing else about behavior or safety.

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 filler, so nothing is wasted. However, for a tool that executes arbitrary code, one terse sentence is arguably under-specified rather than genuinely concise, and the trailing 'full JSON serialization' clause is vague.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for an arbitrary-code-execution tool with zero annotations, the description omits safety posture, sandboxing, side effects, and failure behavior — the exact context an agent needs before invoking it.

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 0% for the single 'script' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add real value by naming the required dialect (ES3 ExtendScript), which the bare 'Script' string schema does not, but it says nothing about expected script structure, return conventions, or how results are serialized back.

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 (Execute) and resource (raw ES3 ExtendScript code inside Photoshop), which clearly separates it from the dozens of narrow sibling operations like photoshop_flatten_image or photoshop_apply_gaussian_blur. It stops short of saying it is the general-purpose escape hatch when no dedicated tool fits, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for raw JSX versus the ~45 purpose-built sibling tools, nor any prerequisites, warnings, or exclusions. An agent must infer on its own that this is the fallback for operations no sibling covers.

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