photoshop_select_painting_method

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does at least assert read-only/non-mutating. It says nothing about what the selection returns, how ties or unsatisfiable constraints (e.g., empty candidate set) are handled, or whether preferred_method_id is guaranteed versus advisory.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the read-only constraint is stated immediately. It is efficient but arguably too terse for the decision complexity involved.

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?

Incorrect placeholder - see corrected reasoning below.

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 38% across 8 parameters, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The required impact_class enum (construct/subtract/tone/...) and the interplay of impact_class, visual_intent, construction_role and preferred_method_id are undocumented in prose.

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 and resource: selecting an executable painting method from a runtime capability map. It is reasonably distinguishable from photoshop_get_painting_method_capabilities (retrieval vs. selection), but it never names that sibling, so the distinction is left implicit.

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 when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance is given beyond 'planning/read-only'. It does not say to call photoshop_get_painting_method_capabilities first, nor how avoid_method_ids or preferred_method_id should influence selection versus simply calling a painting tool directly.

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