Create layer stack (N-layer compositor)

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

The description discloses that the tool builds nodes (Select, Level, Composite TOPs) and a control strip, and returns a summary with inline preview. This adds context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) about the non-destructive creation behavior and the return format. However, it could mention prerequisites or 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 efficiently structured: front-loaded with purpose and key features, then detailed explanation of internal structure and return value. It is verbose but every sentence adds value, fitting the tool's complexity.

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 description fully explains the tool's behavior: parameter usage, internal network nodes, control strip, and return value (summary JSON with paths, errors, preview). No gaps remain given the schema richness and absence of output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds meaningful usage guidance: 'Pass layers (bottom-first) for explicit stack, or omit to build count empty test layers' and explains the internal architecture (Select → Level → Composite). This clarifies the relationship between layers and count parameters.

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 'Build a VJ-style N-layer compositor' with specific verb and resource, and details the compositing mechanism (stack 2–8 source TOPs, per-layer blend modes and opacity). It distinguishes from siblings like create_layer_mixer by emphasizing the multi-layer compositing with individual blend modes.

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 implies usage for VJ-style compositing with multiple layers but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_layer_mixer). No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative comparisons are provided.

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