Save and close the exact cooperatively owned Photoshop or Illustrator copy after a session, leaving original documents untouched.
Save and close only the exact cooperatively owned copy; original documents are not targeted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | ||
| application | 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 disclose destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds meaningful scope: it saves before closing and targets only the cooperative copy, not original documents. It could be stronger by mentioning unsaved-state handling or failure conditions, but it adds real context beyond annotations.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The term 'cooperatively owned copy' is somewhat jargon-heavy but the scope constraint comes through clearly. It is appropriately sized for a simple close operation.
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?
The output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the destructive safety profile. However, with two required parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description omits parameter guidance needed to invoke the tool correctly. It is adequate on scope but incomplete on invocation context.
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% for two required parameters, and the description provides no explanation of session_id or application. It does not clarify that application must be photoshop or illustrator, nor what session_id identifies. This leaves the agent dependent on bare parameter names.
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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Save and close' a 'cooperatively owned copy'. It also distinguishes the target from 'original documents', which helps separate it from broader document-closing behavior. It does not explicitly name the sibling adobe_open_copy or clarify the relationship, so it falls short of a 5.
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 implies usage by limiting the tool to the exact cooperatively owned copy and excluding original documents. However, it does not state prerequisites such as needing an active cooperative session or name alternatives like adobe_operation_control. The guidance is useful but incomplete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.