photoshop_invert

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 mentions the target ('active layer'), which implies a prerequisite, but it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, whether it is reversible via undo, what happens if no layer is active, or whether it affects layer masks or selections.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and the target, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter command.

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. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, the description is only minimally complete for a mutation tool: it names the target layer but omits behavioral details such as reversibility, prerequisites, and side effects.

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 tool has zero parameters, so per the scoring guidance the baseline is 4. The description does not introduce parameter semantics beyond what the empty schema already communicates.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Invert colors' of the 'active layer.' It is clear enough to distinguish from unrelated siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling photoshop_invert_selection, which is a closely related alternative.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as photoshop_invert_selection or photoshop_desaturate. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context and exclusions.

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