adobe_operation_control

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond them: adopt requires 'both observed hashes' and abandon is only valid 'after app exit'. It does not clarify that the inspect action is a safe read within an otherwise destructive tool, nor what state is lost on abandon.

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 compact sentence with the three actions front-loaded, which is the right shape. The compression goes too far, though — 14 words of dense noun phrases leave the actor and resource ambiguous rather than merely brief.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described, but a 6-parameter, destructive, stateful operation-control tool with 0% schema coverage needs far more than one sentence. The three required identifiers are undocumented and the destructive action's consequences are unstated.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the load, and it only partially does: 'with both observed hashes' ties the two sha256 fields to adopt_current but never says whether they are mandatory there or what the observed/expected distinction means. session_id, application, and operation_id get no explanation at all.

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 three distinct actions (inspect, adopt, abandon) that map to the action enum, but the object of those verbs — 'retained completion' — is opaque jargon that an agent cannot resolve without guessing. It never contrasts itself with the very similar siblings adobe_inspect, adobe_open_copy, and adobe_close_copy, so the agent cannot tell which tool owns this behavior.

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?

There is only an implicit sequence ('inspect ... adopt ... or abandon after app exit') with no explicit statement of when to pick this tool over adobe_inspect or adobe_close_copy. No preconditions are spelled out, no exclusions, no guidance on which action applies to which situation beyond the ordering hint.

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