photoshop_move_layer_to_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Move', implying a layer-stack reorder, but gives no details about how the active layer is determined, what happens when targetLayerName is not found, or the effect of each enum value. This is insufficient for a mutating operation with no safety annotations.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to the ambiguity around TOP/BOTTOM and sibling differentiation.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, along with many overlapping sibling tools, this minimal description is not complete enough for consistent correct invocation. Important context around enum semantics, required preconditions, and sibling selection is missing.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the relational movement; the position parameter descriptions in the schema still leave TOP/BOTTOM ambiguous, but the description itself does not need to compensate when the schema already documents all parameters.

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 the verb, resource (active layer), and relational target, so the core action is visible. However, it leaves the meaning of TOP/BOTTOM within 'relative to another layer' ambiguous and does not differentiate the tool from siblings like photoshop_move_layer_to_top, photoshop_move_layer_to_bottom, or photoshop_move_layer.

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 tool versus the many similar layer-stack tools. The description does not explain when ABOVE/BELOW should be chosen over TOP/BOTTOM, nor when this tool is preferable to move_layer_to_top or move_layer_up.

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