photoshop_transform_landmarks

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: this is a pure, side-effect-free computation that never touches the Photoshop document. However, it says nothing about what comes back, error behavior on invalid/degenerate frames, or ordering guarantees for the transformed point set.

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, with the operation stated first and the crucial non-interaction caveat second. Every clause earns its place and nothing essential is buried.

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?

Input semantics for a nested 3-parameter geometry tool are reasonably covered, but there is no output schema, so the description should have stated the return shape (transformed named points, in what frame). Combined with the absent annotations, an agent still has to guess the response contract.

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% (frame params documented, `points` undocumented), so the description meaningfully compensates by defining `points` as a caller-supplied named landmark set and by stating the core mapping rule ('preserving local u/v coordinates') that explains what source_frame/target_frame actually do. It stops short of clarifying what 'axis-aligned' implies for the frames' numeric semantics.

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?

Specific verb (transform) plus resource (caller-supplied named landmark set) and explicit scope (axis-aligned semantic frame to frame, preserving local u/v). The second sentence ('Pure geometry: does not inspect Photoshop or detect landmarks') actively separates it from siblings like photoshop_compare_landmarks and photoshop_measure_points.

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 implies the caller must already have landmarks and frames ('caller-supplied', 'does not detect landmarks'), which hints that measure/compare tools are the way to obtain points first. But it never states when to choose this over photoshop_compare_landmarks or photoshop_geometry_calculate, nor any prerequisites (e.g., non-degenerate frames).

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