Documento nuevo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists configuration fields but says nothing about side effects: whether the new document is opened/becomes active, whether Photoshop must be running, what happens on name collisions, or what the response contains. For an 11-parameter mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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 front-loaded sentence beginning with the verb, with no filler. It is dense and comma-heavy but every listed element corresponds to a real parameter, so little is wasted.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations on a complex creation tool, the description adequately covers the input configuration but omits return behavior and side effects (active document, error cases). It is complete enough to construct a call but not to predict its outcome.

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 36%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it names every major field in natural language (tamaño→width/height, unidad, resolución, modo de color, profundidad, perfil ICC, fondo, guías) and adds meaning for slides ('diapositivas continuas (slides: {count, width}) con guías en cada corte'). It adds value beyond the sparse schema, though it omits the 'name' parameter and enum values.

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 ('Crea un documento') and enumerates the configuration it applies (tamaño, unidad, resolución, modo, perfil, fondo, guías, slides). An agent knows this creates a new document, but the description never distinguishes it from siblings like ps_open or ps_set_document.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives such as ps_open (existing files) or ps_set_document (modifying an open document). The agent must infer that this is the creation path purely from the verb 'Crea'.

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