gimp_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the mutating nature of the tool through action names like delete, merge_down, and resize_to_image, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, required open image/layer context, reversibility, or error behavior for destructive operations.

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 compact, front-loading the purpose with 'Layer operations' followed by a dense action list. It contains no filler. The single-line comma-separated format is efficient but slightly hard to parse due to its density.

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 19 parameters, 13 possible actions, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is insufficient. It does not state which parameters are required for each action, whether layer_id is needed for delete/duplicate/merge_down, how image_id or layer_id are obtained, or what prerequisites must be met. The output schema covers return values but not invocation requirements.

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 valuable action-to-parameter mappings, such as 'new (image_id, name, width, height, fill, x, y, position)' and 'move (dx, dy)', which is helpful given 0% schema description coverage. However, it omits some schema parameters like layer_id, merge_type, and local_origin, and does not explain value formats or meaning for fields like fill, mode, opacity, or position.

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 identifies this as a layer-operation dispatch tool and enumerates the supported sub-actions (new, set, move, reorder, duplicate, merge_down, delete, resize_to_image, scale, add_alpha, crop_to_content, info). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like gimp_layer_mask or gimp_layer_effects, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The action list implies core layer editing, but there are no explicit exclusions or conditions, such as when to prefer gimp_layer_mask for mask operations or gimp_layer_effects for effects.

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