gimp_layer_order

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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation, so safety is partly covered. The description adds the semantics of each action (raise/lower move one step, position 0 = top), which is useful behavioral context, but says nothing about what happens to sibling layers or the resulting stack state.

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 with no filler; the action taxonomy is packed compactly. Dense but readable, and every clause carries meaning.

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?

With no output schema and no per-parameter documentation, the description covers the action space reasonably but leaves the required layer_id and the expected result/return unaddressed. Adequate for a simple reorder tool, but gaps remain for correct invocation.

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 carries the burden. It partially compensates by explaining the action enum values and clarifying that position 0 means top, but layer_id (a required integer) is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb ("Mueve") and resource ("capa") plus the stack-reorder scope, with the action variants enumerated. An agent can distinguish it from layer-creation/edit siblings like gimp_new_layer or gimp_set_layer, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Implies usage through the action names (raise/lower one step, top/bottom, absolute position), but never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as gimp_set_layer, nor any prerequisites like having a layer selected.

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