Autonomously trigger Adobe Firefly Generative Fill on the active selection to replace or add content using an AI prompt, enabling quick edits in Photoshop.
Autonomously triggers Adobe Firefly Generative Fill on the active selection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prompt | No | ||
| wait_completion | No |
| 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 and does not meet it. 'Autonomously triggers' hints at an external Firefly call but says nothing about credit/network requirements, that the operation replaces the selected pixels (destructive), or that it may run asynchronously despite the wait_completion parameter.
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 or repetition. It is efficient, though the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.
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 needn't be described, but for a prompt-driven, non-idempotent generation tool with zero annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description is far too thin. It omits the prompt requirement, the async/wait semantics, and any prerequisite about having an active selection.
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%, so the description must compensate and does not. Neither key parameter is explained: the prompt parameter (no mention that generation is prompt-driven or that it defaults to empty) and wait_completion (no mention of blocking vs async behavior). Only the implicit 'active selection' context is added.
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 (triggers) and resource (Adobe Firefly Generative Fill) and scopes it to the active selection, which distinguishes it from photoshop_generative_remove_ai and photoshop_content_aware_fill reasonably well. It stops short of explicitly naming how it differs from those adjacent siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
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 guidance is given. It does not tell the agent to prefer this over photoshop_content_aware_fill, nor that photoshop_generative_remove_ai is the right sibling for removing objects, nor that a selection must already exist. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'active selection'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.