Efectos de capa

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the destructive default ('replace' wipes existing effects), the non-destructive alternative ('merge' preserves the rest), the cross-layer copy behavior of copyFrom, and that the tool returns the resulting effects read back from Photoshop. It omits permission/error context, but the core mutation semantics are transparent.

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 front-loaded (effect list first, then mode, then copyFrom, then return value) and each sentence earns its place with no filler. Slightly dense but appropriately sized for a tool with this many effect categories.

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 nested tool with 6 params and no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors and explicitly notes the return value, which is needed since no output schema exists. It leaves details of disable/effects sub-fields to the schema, which is reasonable given 83% coverage.

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 83% (above the 80% baseline of 3), but the description still adds real meaning: it documents that mode defaults to 'replace', what replace vs merge do, and how copyFrom behaves, none of which the bare enum conveys. This is meaningful added value over the structured schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("Aplica estilos de capa") and enumerates the exact effect types it supports (sombras, sombra interior, resplandores, bisel/relieve, satinado, overlays, trazo), so an agent knows precisely what it does. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling style tools such as ps_style_set or ps_capture_style, so it stops 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?

It explains the operational semantics of mode ('replace' replaces, 'merge' preserves) and what copyFrom does, which implies usage. But it never states when to reach for this tool versus ps_style_set, ps_capture_style, or ps_style_get, so the when-to-use guidance is only implied.

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