photoshop_select_subject

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It does not say whether the operation replaces any existing selection, whether it requires a raster/pixel layer or works on smart objects, what happens when no subject is detected, or whether the operation is undoable.

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; the action and its mechanism are stated immediately and nothing needs trimming.

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, and one optional boolean parameter is a small surface. Still, for an unannotated AI-driven mutation of the selection state, the description omits the behavioral facts (selection replacement, layer requirements, failure mode) an agent would want before invoking it.

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% and the single parameter (sample_all_layers, boolean, default true) is never mentioned. The description adds no meaning about what sampling all layers does versus sampling only the active layer, so an agent must guess from the parameter name alone.

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+resource: it detects and selects the primary subject(s), and names the underlying mechanism (Adobe Sensei AI). That clearly separates it from geometric selectors like photoshop_select_rectangle or photoshop_select_all, though it offers no explicit differentiation from the very similar photoshop_select_sky.

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?

Usage is only implied by the name: an agent can infer you call this when you want the main subject isolated rather than a geometric or sky selection. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as photoshop_select_sky.

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