ps_save_as_jpg

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the export action and quality range; it does not mention side effects like overwriting an existing file, what happens if no path is provided, whether a document must be open, or any error conditions. This is a significant gap for an operation that writes a file.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and target format, then provides the essential quality constraint. There is no wasted wording or redundant elaboration.

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 file-export tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to be fully actionable. It omits crucial context such as default save behavior when path is omitted, whether existing files are overwritten, and required preconditions like having an active document. The schema covers parameters, but the operational context is incomplete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both path and quality. The description repeats the quality range and default but adds no meaning beyond the schema; path semantics are left entirely to the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('export current Photoshop document') and a specific target format ('as JPG'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ps_save_as_png and ps_save_as_psd. An agent can immediately tell what resource is affected and what output is produced.

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 when a JPG export of the current Photoshop document is desired, and the 'current document' qualifier gives some context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives such as ps_save_as_png or ps_save_as_psd.

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