apply_smart_mask

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It hints at a transactional insertion but does not disclose whether an existing mask is replaced, whether the layer must be selected or unlocked, what permissions or resource formats are required, or how failures behave.

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 wasted text. It communicates the action and target efficiently.

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?

The tool is a mutation with no annotations and completely undocumented parameters. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description is still too thin for an agent to call this safely and correctly.

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 both parameters need explanation. The description only weakly implies that uid identifies the layer and resource_url identifies the Smart Mask resource; it does not clarify expected formats, identifiers, or constraints.

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: apply a Smart Mask resource to a layer. This is clear enough to understand the operation, but it does not differentiate the tool from nearby siblings such as insert_mask_effect or 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus insert_mask_effect, set_layer_mask, or insert_smart_material. The phrase 'using transactional mask insertion' describes mechanism, not usage conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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