photoshop_move_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the operation: the active layer is moved by a supplied offset. It does not mention that the move is relative to the current layer position, that document_id activates the target document before running, or coordinate-system details; these are partially recoverable from the schema but not fully disclosed in the description.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It packs the verb, target, and operand into eight words and is immediately scannable. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core purpose.

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 simple mutation tool with fully documented required parameters, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient. The main missing context is the implicit prerequisite that a layer must be active/selected and what the tool returns, but the core semantics required for correct invocation are clear enough.

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 deltaX, deltaY, and document_id are already documented with types, defaults, and notes. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline situation. It does not enrich semantics like units beyond pixels or the exact activation behavior of document_id.

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 states a specific action ('Move'), a precise target ('the active layer'), and the exact nature of the change ('by specified offset'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like photoshop_move_layer_to_position, photoshop_scale_layer, and the various z-order movement tools, because it is about translating a layer by pixel offsets rather than reordering or transforming in other ways.

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?

Usage context is implied but not explicit: the phrase 'by specified offset' signals a relative pixel movement, which separates it from absolute-position and reorder tools. However, the description does not state when to prefer this tool, that a layer must first be active/selected, or what prerequisites apply. The agent must infer selection criteria from sibling names rather than from clear guidance.

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