Ejecutar acción grabada

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 doesn't state whether the action mutates the document, what happens on failure, whether it requires an open document, or whether it's reversible via history. For a mutating execute tool, this is a notable 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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and names the two inputs. No waste.

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 tool that mutates a document with zero annotation coverage, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits preconditions (open document needed?), failure behavior, and parameter meaning.

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 0%, so the two parameters (set, name) are undocumented anywhere. The description merely names them in passing ('nombre y conjunto') without explaining what a set is, expected format, or how to discover valid values. It falls short of compensating for the coverage gap.

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 (Reproduce/Ejecutar) and resource (acción grabada/Photoshop action) with the identifying fields (nombre y conjunto). Clear what it does, though it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like ps_action_manager, which likely also concerns actions.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus ps_action_manager or ps_run_script_file. The agent must infer that this executes an existing recorded action while the manager likely creates/manages them.

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