ae_create_layer

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates the mutation ('Create') and the target ('in a composition'), but it does not explain composition targeting semantics, insertion behavior, defaults, or failure modes. These are significant gaps for a mutating tool with 18 parameters.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the purpose first and then layering in type constraints and format conventions. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 18 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is not complete enough for reliable invocation across all layer types. The text-layer path is reasonably covered, but solid, shape, camera, light, and adjustment layers lack the parameter guidance needed to construct valid calls. The description also omits return behavior and composition selection semantics.

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 only 22%, so the description must compensate. It adds useful semantics for color range (RGB 0–1), position vector length, and the text-layer parameter bundle. However, most parameters (scale, width, height, rotation, shape, opacity) remain unexplained beyond their names, and the required parameter sets for solid, shape, camera, light, and adjustment are not specified.

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 states a precise action and resource: 'Create a layer in a composition.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ae_create_composition and ae_set_layer_properties. Listing the allowed type values adds specificity, even though the schema already constrains 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 opening sentence establishes clear context for when to use the tool. The type-specific guidance ('For text pass text/fontSize/fillColor') helps the agent shape arguments correctly. However, it does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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