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

The description discloses critical operational behaviors not present in annotations or schema, such as its transactional nature ('All or nothing: an invalid entry rejects the whole call') and its static nature (placement only).

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?

Although dense, the description is highly efficient. Every clause (static vs animation, sibling comparisons, failure mode) serves a distinct, necessary purpose for an agent to correctly choose this specific tool over its alternatives.

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?

Given the complexity of handling a batch operation with internal constraints (like static vs. keyframe placement and transactional integrity), the definition is extremely complete and leaves no critical operational gaps for the agent to infer.

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?

While the schema is 100% covered, the description adds high semantic value by explicitly stating that the parameters define the layer's 'static base' and linking them to the rules of the single move_layer function, providing conceptual guidance beyond the type definitions.

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 tool explicitly states its purpose: moving multiple layers ('MANY layers in ONE call'). It distinguishes itself from similar tools by identifying itself as the bulk operation counterpart to move_layer and clarifying its batch placement nature.

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 definition provides explicit instructions on when to use it ('place many layers at once, scatter fifty duplicates, lay out a grid') and when NOT to use it ('never use set_keyframes_batch for it'). This strongly guides the AI agent.

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