edit_sublayer

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful constraints: the operation requires a stopped timeline and uses exact read-back checks, and a preview mode exists. However, side effects, idempotency semantics, and failure behavior are not disclosed, so transparency is partial.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the operation and includes the key constraints without filler. It is concise, though some terminology is packed tightly and could be expanded without becoming bloated.

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 six parameters and a mutation operation with idempotency fields, this description leaves too much unspecified: action vocabulary, parameter semantics, prerequisites, and preview workflow. The output schema helps decode return values, not build correct inputs, so the tool is not fully invokable by description alone.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It loosely maps action to preview/add/remove and layer_path to the root-layer subLayer path, but it does not define allowed action values, the index parameter, preview behavior, command_id, or idempotency_key. A caller cannot reliably construct valid arguments from the text alone.

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 names a specific operation ('Preview or add/remove') and a specific resource ('root-layer subLayer path'), plus distinguishing checks ('stopped-timeline and exact read-back checks'). It is clear about what the tool touches, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling composition tools like edit_composition_arc.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no stated preconditions beyond the implied stopped-timeline requirement, and no advice on when to preview versus apply. Usage context must be inferred from the tool name and sibling list.

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