photoshop_save_document

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 whether saving overwrites the original file, requires an open document, prompts for format when a new path is given, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the behavioral gaps elsewhere.

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, for a document-mutating tool with no annotations, the description omits essential context such as overwrite semantics, format handling, and prerequisites, leaving it only minimally sufficient.

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. It does: it tells the agent file_path is optional and represents a 'new path', correctly clarifying the in-place-save default versus save-as behavior that the schema alone (nullable string, default null) does not convey.

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 and resource ('Save the active document') and distinguishes itself from photoshop_export_as by scope (active document in place vs export). Nothing beyond that differentiates it explicitly from siblings, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

The phrase 'optionally specifying a new path' implies a save-in-place default, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus photoshop_export_as (which also writes to disk in another format). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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