precompose-layers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that layers are replaced in the source comp with a single layer referencing the new precomp, which is a mutating action. However, it does not detail side effects like whether original layer properties are preserved, or the impact of moveAllAttributes. The behavior is partially transparent but lacks full detail on consequences.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately communicates the purpose and key behavior. It is concise with zero wasted words, fitting the 'appropriately sized and front-loaded' ideal.

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 moderately complex tool with a rich schema describing all parameters, the description covers the core action and its effect on the source comp. It does not mention return values (no output schema) but successfully conveys the essential operation. It is nearly complete for its complexity level.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage. It does not need to elaborate further.

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 clearly states the action: 'Bundle one or more layers into a new nested composition', and explains the outcome of replacing layers in the source comp. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create-composition or duplicate-layer by specifically referencing the 'Layer > Precompose' feature, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage—when you need to precompose layers—but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of alternative tools for similar tasks (e.g., creating a composition manually), so guidance is limited to the implied context.

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