Add image layer

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

The sentence 'The pixels are stored as-is; the placement only sets the layer's transform' adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: placement does not modify pixel data. The annotations are all consistent with the described mutation, so there is no contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and supported formats. There is no wasted wording or redundant restatement of schema fields.

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 tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema cover required inputs and the key behavioral guarantee about pixel preservation. It does not describe the success return value, but no output schema is provided and the operation type makes the result reasonably predictable.

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 82%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds useful context about placement not altering pixel data, but it does not clarify the few schema-underspecified parameters such as opacity or blendMode. A 3 is appropriate since the schema carries most of the load.

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 operation: importing an image file as a new pixel layer, and lists supported formats. The word 'new' and 'pixel layer' clearly distinguish this from sibling tools like replace_layer_image and set_layer_mask.

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 description clearly implies when to use the tool: when an image file should be added as a new layer. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'new pixel layer' wording gives enough context for an agent to select it over replace_layer_image.

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