photoshop_feather_selection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not say what happens when no selection is active, whether the operation is undoable, how it interacts with the selection's hard/soft edge, or what the returned result contains, despite being a mutation of document state.

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 compact sentence with the effect and its unit front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is terse enough that a bit more behavioral context could have been added without bloat.

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 no explanation, and a one-parameter tool does not require much. Still, for an unannotated mutation tool the description leaves the preconditions and result of feathering unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single 'radius' parameter. It adds the unit ('pixels'), which the schema does not, but omits any bounds, sign, or default expectations (e.g., Photoshop's typical non-negative range).

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?

Specific verb ('feather') plus resource ('edge of the active selection') and the effect unit ('by radius pixels'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from closely related siblings like photoshop_expand_selection or photoshop_contract_selection, which also alter selection geometry.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The phrase 'active selection' weakly implies a selection must already exist, but the description never states the prerequisite or the sibling choice (expand/contract for hard edges vs feather for soft edges).

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