photoshop_analyze_value_structure

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 states it is non-destructive, 'never declares artistic PASS automatically', 'does not modify the PSD', and that it registers real evidence (evidence_operation_id and SHA) as a side effect. What is missing is whether materialize_path actually writes a file to disk and any preconditions around the pinned document state.

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 critical output information is buried in the middle rather than front-loaded, and the opening clause is the least informative sentence in the whole definition. There is mild redundancy between 'non-destructive preview' and 'does not modify the PSD', though the length is not excessive for the amount of behavior conveyed.

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 3-parameter analysis tool with no output schema, the description does a good job enumerating returns (full grayscale JPEG, downsampled thumbnail, luminance summaries, evidence_operation_id and SHA) and the safety profile. Only the size/scale parameter and file-writing side effect are left under-specified, which is minor.

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 67%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces document_id as the analyzed pinned preview and links materialization to the evidence-registration behavior, but max_dimension_px is never mentioned in the description and the description adds no format/semantics beyond the 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 concrete middle of the description ('Returns a full grayscale JPEG, a low-frequency downsampled grayscale thumbnail, and descriptive luminance summaries') makes the resource and output legible, but the opening sentence is opaque jargon ('exact delivered Guard frame', 'materialized grayscale/luminance evidence', 'Director updates') that an agent must decode. It never names a sibling (e.g. photoshop_get_preview or photoshop_guard_review_image) to differentiate itself, leaving overlap with those tools unresolved.

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 hints at the use case ('for Art Director review', 'major-form claims can be checked independently of surface activity') but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternatives to the similarly-scoped preview/review siblings. An agent cannot tell from this text when to reach for this tool instead of get_preview.

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