photoshop_layer_create

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

Annotations include idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, but the description mentions a 'verification pipeline' without detailing behavior like requiring pairing or approval. It does not contradict annotations, but it falls short of what is expected for a tool with no annotation on read-only or side effects. The description does not address the side effects of creating a layer (e.g., document mutation) or the need for an open document.

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 very short, only two sentences, which is concise, but it is not well-structured. It front-loads 'Typed convenience tool' which is vague, and does not provide useful information in the first sentence. The structure is adequate but could be improved by leading with a clear action statement.

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 optional parameter and an output schema, but the description leaves the agent guessing about prerequisites (e.g., open document, pairing state) and what the tool actually returns. Given the output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values, but it should explain the creation side effects and any required context, which is missing.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it gives no explanation of the 'name' parameter beyond the schema's type and maxLength. There is no guidance on what the name should be, whether it is optional (since required is 0), or how it is used. The description adds zero value for parameter understanding.

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 says it is a 'Typed convenience tool for layer.create', which indicates creating a layer, but it doesn't explicitly state the action or the resource (layer) directly, and it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like photoshop_layer_rename. The purpose is somewhat clear from the 'layer.create' reference, but an agent might not know what this tool does without prior knowledge of the underlying API.

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 mentions 'Uses the same catalog policy and verification pipeline', which hints at usage context, but it does not explain when to prefer this over direct execution or sibling tools. There is no explicit condition for when to use this tool instead of others, such as when you need to create a layer with minimal typing.

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