merge_layer_down

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the merge operation but does not explain effects on the bottom layer, deletion of the merged layer, impact on animation frames, or required permissions. This lack of detail limits the agent's ability to assess side effects.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, the Args list repeats schema information, and the constraint could have been integrated more concisely. Still, it earns a high score for immediate clarity.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description fails to explain the return value or post-merge state (e.g., whether the merged layer is deleted, how the bottom layer changes). For a destructive operation, this incompleteness hinders the agent's understanding of consequences.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description adds essential meaning: 'filename' is the 'Aseprite file to modify' and 'layer_name' is the 'Layer to merge down (must not be the bottom layer)'. This clarifies purpose and constraint beyond the schema titles, though format details are missing.

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 clearly states the action ('merge a layer into the layer directly below it') with a specific verb ('merge') and resource ('layer'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like duplicate_layer or delete_layer by specifying the direction and constraint (not bottom layer), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a constraint (layer must not be the bottom layer) but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like flatten_sprite or reorder_layer. It does not mention scenarios where merging is appropriate or when other tools would be better.

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