Bring new PSD art into an existing project

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly supplied. The description usefully adds that apply takes a backup before writing, that renders are produced before/after, and that the .spine file is untouched. However, it never clarifies that 'restore' overwrites existing image files (a potentially destructive path) nor how backups are identified or listed.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, with the core guarantee stated first. The heavy use of sentence fragments ('grow enlarges a region image', 'restore: a backup id') makes it terse but slightly telegraphic and uneven in register.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the main workflow but leaves four parameters undocumented and gives no sense of what a dry-run returns (render paths? a diff report?). Adequate, not complete.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage across 10 parameters, the description carries most of the burden, and it explains only psd, grow, placement (psd side only), apply, preview and restore. It says nothing about `only`, `scale`, `skeleton`, or what placement 'keep' means, so several parameters remain opaque.

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 ('Updates a project's image files from a layered PSD') plus the key invariant that the .spine skeleton is not touched, which separates it from spine_import_layers and spine_reimport_diff. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead when the whole project must be rebuilt.

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 description lays out the operating modes well: dry-run/preview by default, 'apply backs up and writes', plus the placement and grow switches. It gives clear guidance on the safe path (preview first) but never states when to prefer a sibling such as spine_import_layers or spine_restore_backup.

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