photoshop_select_ellipse

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that feathering is optional, but says nothing about the coordinate frame/units, whether the current selection is replaced, or which document/layer is affected. For a selection-mutating tool this is a significant 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than being right-sized for a 5-parameter tool with an output schema.

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 described. However, for a selection-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves coordinate semantics and selection-state behavior completely 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 description coverage is 0% on 5 parameters, and the description compensates for almost none of them: left/top/right/bottom are never explained (bounding-box corners in pixels?), and 'optional feathering' merely restates that the schema field is not required with a default of 0.

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 ('Create an elliptical selection'), which is more informative than the bare tool name. The distinction from photoshop_select_rectangle is implied by 'elliptical' but never made explicit, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 versus photoshop_select_rectangle, photoshop_select_all, or photoshop_deselect, and no note on whether an existing selection is replaced or added to. Only the elliptical shape is implied as the selection criterion.

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