Object Layering

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

Annotations only cover the generic safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description usefully adds that the result is a .psd written to disk with paths returned, and that input quality affects results. It does not disclose credit consumption or processing time, though the schema's estimate_only/timeout_seconds partially cover those gaps.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and output format, then use cases and constraints. Four short sentences, though 'Result is a .psd file' and 'Result files are saved to disk and their paths returned' overlap slightly.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema and only generic annotations, the description supplies the key missing context: output artifact type, on-disk persistence, and input suitability. An agent could call it correctly, though it doesn't mention runtime/cost behavior that the schema only hints at.

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% and every parameter is documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'distinct motifs on a contrasting background' adds mild guidance about the image parameter, but nothing about wait, output_dir or review_settings behaviors.

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: 'split the design into a layered PSD, one layer per object,' and names the output format. The 'by object or motif' phrasing implicitly separates it from the sibling td_colour_layering, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives a clear use case ('Best for: splitting a design into editable layers by object or motif, e.g. to move flowers apart in Photoshop instead of redrawing') plus an input precondition ('works best with distinct motifs on a contrasting background'). No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative (e.g. colour layering) is offered.

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