photoshop_approval_request

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

Annotations only carry false hints (idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description must clarify behavior. It reveals the job is 'automatically completed' and 'scope-bound,' which is some behavioral insight. Yet it doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, whether it triggers side effects, or what 'for compatibility' implies. This is partial disclosure but not rich.

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 with no filler, so it is concise. However, the second sentence ('Direct execution normally does not need this tool') is vague and doesn't add concrete value, while the first remains too generic to be useful. Brevity without substance.

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?

With 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage in the description, and no explanation of 'scope-bound' or 'automatically completed,' an agent cannot infer the correct args, payload, or justification. The output schema exists, but parameter semantics are entirely opaque. This is far from complete.

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 0%, and the description mentions none of the five parameters (args, engine, payload, command_id, justification). The agent gets zero guidance on what values to provide or how they relate to the job, forcing schema inspection without semantic context.

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 it creates an 'approval job' that is 'automatically completed' and 'scope-bound,' which is a specific verb-resource pairing. However, 'for compatibility' is vague, and it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like photoshop_command_execute or photoshop_job_get. The purpose is understandable but under-specified.

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 statement 'Direct execution normally does not need this tool' gives a when-not condition, which is useful. But it provides no guidance on when this tool SHOULD be used, nor does it mention alternatives among the many siblings (e.g., photoshop_command_execute). There's no explicit routing or exclusion logic beyond the vague 'compatibility' note.

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