Objetos inteligentes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It lists the operations but never states side effects, reversibility, or the non-destructive nature of a smart-object conversion, and it omits 'rasterize' from the enum entirely. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real 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 with no filler; the verb and resource lead. It reads as a long comma list, but every item maps to a real capability, 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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation space but omits the 'rasterize' enum value, ignores the 'path' parameter, and gives no behavioral or return context. Adequate but with clear holes.

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 50% (doc and layer documented; path and action undocumented). The description compensates partially by giving semantic meaning to six of the seven action values, but it leaves 'path' unexplained and, critically, never mentions the 'rasterize' action at all, so the description takes the agent only part of the way.

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 ('Convertir') and resource ('objeto inteligente') and enumerates the full set of operations (convert/replace/edit/relink/embed/toLinked). An agent understands this is the smart-object manipulation tool and won't confuse it with sibling layer tools. It loses a point only for not naming the siblings it differs from.

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 explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The enumerated operations implicitly hint at selection, but the agent must infer which action to pick and when – nothing routes it here versus ps_merge_rasterize or ps_place_image.

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