ps_layerStyle

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=false, yet the description states 'clear:true removes all effects' — a removal of existing layer styling that the annotation says will not happen. An agent trusting the annotation could invoke clear:true and silently wipe user effects; the description does disclose this, but it directly contradicts the annotation, which the rubric treats as an Annotation Contradiction.

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?

It is a single front-loaded paragraph with no filler; the purpose and effect list come first. The shorthand brace notation is terse and slightly cryptic but earns its place through information 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?

For a non-readonly 6-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the effects and clear but omits whether adding an already-present effect replaces or stacks, how clear:true interacts with effect params supplied in the same call, and failure behavior.

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 only 33% (layer and document have descriptions), and the nested stroke/dropShadow/outerGlow objects have bare additionalProperties in the schema. The description compensates well by enumerating the valid fields per effect and the position enum (outside|inside|center), but it omits units, defaults and value ranges (e.g., size/angle/spread), so 4 rather than 5.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource ('add layer effects') and enumerates the exact effect types (stroke, dropShadow, outerGlow), which makes it unmistakable next to sibling styling tools like ps_adjustmentLayer or ps_applyFilter. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling it should be used instead of, 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this over alternatives and no prerequisites (e.g., that the layer must exist or be selected). The only conditional offered is the clear:true behavior, which is a parameter note rather than usage guidance.

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