Colour Layering

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them by disclosing the output contract: a .psd file written to disk with returned paths. It stops short of mentioning credit consumption or the async/wait behaviour, but the core behavioural traits are present.

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 and the four clauses are compact with no filler. Slightly dense in the middle clause where mode and layer-count options are crammed together, but nothing is redundant.

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 10-parameter tool with modes, async submission and credit charging, the description covers what it does, the key mode choice, and the return artefact (no output schema exists, so this matters). It omits credit/estimate behaviour and interactive settings flow, though the schema covers those.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including mode, n_clusters, is_automatic, wait and estimate_only. The description only echoes the mode and layer-count ranges at a high level, adding little syntax or default detail beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies.

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 — 'separate the design into colour layers in a PSD' — and adds a use-case qualifier ('turning flat-colour art into one editable layer per colour') that distinguishes it from neighbours like td_object_layering and td_foil_separation. An agent can identify the operation and its output artefact without opening the schema.

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?

'Best for: turning flat-colour art...' gives clear when-to-use context, and the mode note (simple recommended vs advanced) signals a preference. However, no sibling alternative is named and there is no explicit when-not guidance, so the agent must infer the boundary against the other layering/separation tools.

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