Action Manager directo

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it omits the most important traits: these events can mutate the document (make/set/select/delete), there is no disclosure of destructive risk, permission requirements, or failure behavior. The descriptor format is explained, but that is parameter mechanics, not behavioral disclosure.

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 content is dense but front-loaded: the core action comes first, then the descriptor grammar, then the routing rule. Every clause earns its place, though the parenthetical grammar dump makes the middle heavy for a reader skimming for intent.

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 complex tool with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the descriptor input shape but leaves return values, error modes, and mutation risk undescribed. Adequate as an escape hatch, but not complete enough to call it confidently without trial.

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 coverage is only 50%, but the description compensates by explaining the descriptor grammar ({_c}, {_u}, {_e}, {_i}, {_ref}) for the otherwise empty descriptor param and by clarifying get:[referencia] semantics. It still does not explain exact, or the doc/layer formats, which the schema itself covers.

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 and resource ("Ejecuta cualquier evento de Photoshop con un descriptor en JSON") and explicitly positions itself as the fallback for operations with no dedicated ps_* tool, which differentiates it from the 40+ sibling tools. However, "cualquier evento" is deliberately broad, so an agent must still infer the concrete capabilities from the descriptor grammar rather than from a described scope.

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 final sentence gives a clear routing rule: this is the escape hatch for advanced operations that lack their own ps_* tool, implying agents should prefer specific siblings first. It does not name explicit when-not conditions or list which ps_* tools cover which tasks, but the fallback framing is actionable.

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