center-layers

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

The description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether centering affects keyframes, works on 3D layers, or permanently modifies position. With no annotations, the burden is entirely on the description, which is insufficient.

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?

The description is extremely concise at 10 words, with no wasted language. However, it lacks structure (e.g., grouping parameters by function) that could improve readability. Still, it earns a high score for efficiency.

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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain return behavior, error handling, or edge cases (e.g., no layers selected). The agent lacks enough context to invoke the tool reliably in all scenarios.

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%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning, implying that layerName/layerIndex target a single layer while allLayers/selectedOnly control scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('center') and resource ('layers'), and clearly defines the scope: 'one layer, selected layers, or all layers'. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'add-marker' or 'delete-layer' which perform different actions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or when not to use it. It doesn't clarify parameter interactions (e.g., what happens if both layerName and allLayers are specified) or prerequisites like ensuring a composition exists.

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