ps_add_text_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action of adding a text layer without mentioning side effects (e.g., that it modifies the open document, whether the new layer becomes active, any requirements like an open document, or error conditions). This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 concise sentence that clearly states the purpose first, then enumerates parameters. It is efficient with no fluff, though the parameter list could be more structured but is still readable and earns 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 simple tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It doesn't mention any preconditions (e.g., that a document must be open) or what the tool returns after execution. Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap but still present.

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 100%, and the description essentially paraphrases the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., x/y as top-left position, r/g/b as RGB color). It adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'add' and the resource 'text layer' in the current Photoshop document. It distinguishes from siblings like ps_add_layer (generic layer) and ai_add_text (Illustrator) through the explicit mention of 'text layer' and 'Photoshop document'.

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 usage is implied: it adds a text layer to the current document. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives (e.g., ps_add_layer for non-text layers, or ai_add_text in Illustrator). No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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