PSD layers to a new Spine project

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses that the run is a dry-run by default, that it never overwrites, that masks are baked and unsupported effects are reported, and that results are verified by re-export and a render against the source. That is substantial non-destructive-mutation context. It does not say what happens if the output .spine already exists other than 'never overwrites', nor whether permissions or a running editor are required.

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?

Every clause carries information, but the single telegraphic block cramming three input modes, a nested layout format, and verification into one paragraph is hard to parse. The mode list and the embedded {parts:[...]} spec would read far better as separate sentences or bullets.

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?

For a 12-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, it covers the important parts: input modes, safety defaults, and verification. It still leaves defaults for bones/origin/scale and the distinction between apply and dry-run outcomes unspecified, which an agent would need before a confident call.

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 only 25% across 12 parameters, so the description carries much of the burden. It does explain the three input modes, the bones='groups' behavior and the detailed layout/parts JSON shape, which genuinely compensates for the undocumented parts/layout fields. However origin, scale, includeHidden, skeleton, and the exact apply semantics are left entirely to the bare schema.

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 names a specific resource and action: a new Spine project built from a layered PSD, with a region per layer, draw order from layer order, and bones from groups. The closing 'Places art only' cleanly scopes it away from rigging/animation siblings like spine_auto_rig, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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?

It gives explicit input-mode selection: 'Or json' for PhotoshopToSpine output and 'Or parts' for a layout JSON, plus the dry-run-by-default rule that tells the agent when to set apply. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over spine_update_images or spine_import plus rigging, or what prerequisites (existing project, image paths) are needed.

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