photoshop_document_export

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

The description adds one behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it follows the same catalog policy and verification pipeline as the underlying export command. But it doesn't explain what that policy/pipeline means in practice, nor does it describe side effects such as file creation or overwrite behavior. No contradiction with the `destructiveHint: false` annotation.

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 sentences with no filler; the core purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence adds context, though 'catalog policy and verification pipeline' is vague enough that it does not fully earn its place.

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 tool with three parameters and no parameter documentation in the description, this is incomplete: the agent is left to infer export behavior, file naming, quality semantics, and what the catalog/verification pipeline means. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the description still lacks important invocation context.

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 provides no details about `format`, `quality`, or `file_name`; it merely binds the parameters to a known export command. The enum and min/max in the schema help, but the description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 names the exact operation (`document.export`) and frames the tool as a typed convenience wrapper, so the agent understands it exports a Photoshop document. It is not a pure tautology, but it doesn't spell out the file-export behavior or explicitly contrast it with the generic `photoshop_command_execute` sibling.

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 phrase 'typed convenience tool for document.export' implies the agent should prefer this tool for exporting rather than raw command execution, and 'same catalog policy' ties it to the command pipeline. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or naming of alternatives.

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