photoshop_guard_request_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses the effect (blocks subsequent mutations, including queued work), two important limits (does not replace the host Stop button, cannot undo an already dispatched command). It omits idempotency, permission requirements, and what happens if the operation has already completed.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the primary capability is front-loaded ahead of the caveats. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema, two-parameter stop tool, the description covers effects and hard limits well. Gaps remain around the return signal (how does the agent confirm the stop succeeded?), how to source operation_id, and behavior when the execution is already finished or when the call is repeated.

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 only 50%: document_id is well documented in the schema, but operation_id has no schema description and the tool description only says it must be 'one known Guard execution operation_id' without format or provenance. The description partially compensates by scoping the parameter to a single execution, but the agent still cannot tell how to obtain a valid value.

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 (Stop) on a specific resource (one known Guard execution operation_id) with an explicit scope qualifier ('blocks subsequent Photoshop mutations in that execution, including queued work'). It also pre-emptively distinguishes itself from the MCP host chat Stop button, so an agent can tell it apart from both the host control and sibling guard tools.

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?

Establishes the precondition clearly — you must have a known operation_id for a Guard execution — and rules out the most likely misuse (using it as a substitute for the host chat Stop button). It does not point to where an operation_id comes from (e.g., photoshop_guard_status or photoshop_guard_job_poll) nor contrast it with photoshop_guard_resume, so routing guidance is clear but incomplete.

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