move_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It omits whether index 0 is top or bottom, what happens on out-of-range indexes, whether the move is undoable, and whether it affects the currently selected layer or group nesting — significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the operation immediately and wastes nothing.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should say more: index orientation, boundary behavior, side effects, and success semantics are all absent. What exists is accurate but far too thin to call the definition complete.

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 'name' (layer to move) and 'targetIndex' (destination stack index) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the notion of a 'layer stack', which is baseline context, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 ('reorders') and resource ('a layer position in the layer stack'), which is clear and unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as rename_layer, select_layer, or delete_layer beyond the verb itself.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., layer must exist), and never names an alternative approach. An agent must infer that this is the reorder operation rather than, say, delete-plus-create.

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