add_drop_shadow

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

Annotations declare a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and closed-world scope, so safety is partly covered. The description adds useful side-effect context — a new layer is created beneath the source artwork — but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, or return value.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the Args block is tightly scoped with no filler. The bulleted list could be slightly more economical but every line carries information.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers most parameters but omits the required filename and gives no guidance on frame/layer interaction or the resulting layer's naming. Adequate but leaving clear gaps.

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?

The description adds genuine meaning the schema lacks: offset units (pixels), opacity range (0-255), and color being semi-transparent black by default. However, the required 'filename' parameter is never mentioned, and schema coverage sits at 71%, so the doc is not fully compensating.

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 and resource ('Add a hard drop shadow') and clarifies the output is a new layer placed beneath the source. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like cast_shadow or contact_shadow, leaving the agent to infer which shadow tool applies.

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 explains what the shadow is but gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. With cast_shadow and contact_shadow sitting as siblings, the absence of any routing hint is a real gap.

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