Duplicate, delete, reorder or precompose layers

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

The description openly indicates mutation: duplicating, deleting, reordering, precomposing, and splitting are all structural changes, consistent with readOnlyHint=false. It adds context like 'into a new comp' and 'at the current time,' but it does not disclose consequences such as whether precompose modifies the original stack or what happens to references.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence efficiently lists all five operations with no filler or repetition. Every part of the description adds information, and the operation list is immediately visible.

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?

This is a complex dispatcher with 7 parameters and 5 operations, yet the description provides only a one-line summary. The schema compensates by documenting parameter-specific constraints, but the description does not tie together how the op value selects which parameters apply, nor does it explain split's reliance on current time.

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 high at 86%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already explains each parameter's role. The description adds minimal additional parameter semantics beyond mapping operations to their concepts, so it does not push above the baseline.

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 a specific resource ('layers') and lists concrete structural operations: duplicate, delete, move, precompose, and split. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that add layers, set properties, or manipulate effects, even without naming them.

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 'Structural operations on layers' implies the intended scope, and the operation list helps an agent decide what this tool can do. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like ae_add_layer or ae_set_layer, nor does it give any when-not-to-use guidance.

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