Release Photoshop guard locks only when the owner process is dead; if a live PID stalls the guard job, restart the MCP child before recovery instead of replaying mutations.
Release locks only for dead owners; embedded_guard_job_stalled with a live PID requires MCP-child restart before recovery, never mutation replay.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.8.0-preview.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full safety burden and does disclose important behavioral constraints: locks are released only for dead owners, live-PID stalls require restart, and mutation replay is forbidden. It does not detail permissions, reversibility, or side effects, but the key recovery-safety guidance is present.
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 definition is a single dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and no wasted words. The semicolon cleanly separates the lock-release rule from the live-PID recovery warning.
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?
It covers the critical guard-recovery conditions, but it remains cryptic about what embedded_guard_job_stalled and MCP-child restart mean operationally, and it gives no sense of what the tool returns or how success is confirmed. For a guard-recovery tool with no annotations or output schema, this is minimally adequate but not fully self-contained.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately does not invent parameter details.
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 states a specific action and resource: release locks, scoped only to dead owners. It clearly identifies the recovery scenario involving embedded_guard_job_stalled and a live PID, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as resume or reconcile.
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 gives a clear usage condition ('only for dead owners') and a critical exclusion: live-PID stalled jobs require MCP-child restart before recovery, and mutation replay must never be used. It lacks explicit alternative-tool guidance, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.