ps_clipping_mask

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

The description goes well beyond the idempotentHint annotation, revealing that the operation is non-destructive, that create no-ops with already_clipped:true and release no-ops with released:false, and that the active layer is unchanged. This behavior is not evident from the annotations alone.

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 concise yet thorough, front-loading the core operation and then supporting details in a logical order: action, create, release, idempotency note. Every sentence contributes meaning, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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?

Given a single parameter fully documented in the schema and an output schema that can convey return details, the description covers everything needed for correct selection and invocation: operands, effect, no-op behavior, and alternative tools. Nothing material is missing.

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?

The schema already rules the single op parameter with a 100%-coverage enum description. The tool description enriches this by explaining the mechanics (layer below becomes alpha source), the inverse behavior, and the practical consequence, adding value beyond the schema's dry definition.

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 states a specific operation ('Clip or un-clip the active layer against the layer directly below it') and explicitly names the two modes, create and release. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like ps_layer_mask and ps_add_adjustment_layer, so an agent can identify its unique role.

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 gives contexts for use (constraining a texture/photo to a shape, masking an effect to a single underlying layer) and explicitly directs the agent away from this tool when an adjustment-layer-specific case exists, naming the add_adjustment_layer tool as the alternative. This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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