photoshop_job_resume

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

The annotations are sparse (all false hints) and do not contradict the description. The description adds behavioral context: it is for user-assisted jobs, implying that the job is paused waiting on a UI step. This is useful beyond annotations, as it tells the agent the job is in a specific state. However, it doesn't detail what happens if the job cannot resume or any error conditions.

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?

The description is a single sentence, straightforward, and front-loads the action. It conveys the purpose without fluff.

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?

The tool has a single parameter and an output schema (though not shown), so complexity is low. The description gives the key context about when to use it (after native UI step). However, it could specify what 'resume' entails, such as whether it returns updated job status or requires polling. Given the existence of an output schema and the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but not 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?

The schema has just one parameter (job_id) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain job_id beyond its name. However, with only one obvious parameter, the meaning is likely clear from the name and context. The baseline for high coverage would be 3, but here coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate; it doesn't add any detail about job_id format or origin.

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 a specific action ('Resume a user-assisted Photoshop job') and a clear condition ('after the user completes the native UI step'). It is clear what the tool does, and the context distinguishes it from siblings like photoshop_job_cancel or photoshop_job_get. It doesn't describe the outcome beyond resuming, but the verb and resource are specific enough.

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 description states that the tool should be used 'after the user completes the native UI step', providing clear context for when to invoke. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like photoshop_job_get to check status, but the when-to-use guidance is direct and useful.

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