Apply a retained named path as a Photoshop layer mask or Illustrator clipping group.
Apply a retained named path as a PS layer mask or Illustrator clipping group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path_name | Yes | ||
| layer_path | Yes | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| application | Yes | ||
| expected_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| copy | Yes | ||
| document | Yes | ||
| retry_safe | Yes | ||
| session_id | Yes | ||
| operation_id | Yes | ||
| source_sha256 | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds only the outcome semantics per application; it never says whether an existing mask or clipping group is replaced, what happens on failure, or whether the target layer must be selected or active.
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 zero filler; the application-conditional outcome is packed into one clause. Nothing to trim.
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?
This is a destructive five-parameter mutation with an output schema, so the description needn't explain returns, but it should cover preconditions and the meaning of expected_name and layer_path. With 0% schema coverage, one sentence leaves an agent guessing how to build a valid 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 0% and all five parameters are required with no inline documentation. The description maps loosely to path_name ('named path') and application (PS vs Illustrator), but layer_path's integer index array, expected_name's verification role, and session_id are left entirely unexplained.
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 (apply) and resource (retained named path) and spells out the application-dependent result: a Photoshop layer mask versus an Illustrator clipping group. This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from adobe_add_path, which creates paths rather than consuming them, though no sibling is named in the text.
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 never says when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it state the obvious precondition that a named path must already be retained in the document. The word 'retained' hints at a dependency but no guidance is given on obtaining or verifying that path first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.