photoshop_guard_keep_logical_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully states that pixels and layer structure are not altered, and that composition-scaffold units cannot be promoted or relabelled, but it omits idempotency, request_key behavior, ownership-state side effects, and failure modes.

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 description is two tightly written sentences with the core action and constraint front-loaded. Every sentence adds relevant meaning without repetition.

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?

This is a complex tool with six parameters including a nested scene ownership plan, no annotations, and no output schema. The description covers the core commit semantics but leaves major gaps around conditional requirements, identifier contracts, and expected state changes.

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 only 33%, so the description should compensate, but it only explains hypothesis_id and layer_id as journal-bound identifiers. It does not clarify request_key, document_id, rationale, or when the complex scene_ownership_plan object is required.

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 gives a specific verb and object: commit a visually accepted temporary component on a predeclared independent unit using journal-bound IDs. It also states the main exclusion for composition-scaffold units, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from any sibling guard tool.

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?

The phrase 'visually accepted temporary component' and 'predeclared independent unit' imply this is used only after visual acceptance and prior declaration. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance against alternatives such as reconcile or cycle-auto, and no clear prerequisite checklist.

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