layer_align

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It usefully clarifies that alignment is relative to the canvas artboard (not other layers), but omits whether the operation moves the layer, is reversible/undoable, or has side effects 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 wasted words, appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool. It is terse but not padded.

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 stops short: it does not describe return behavior, undo semantics, or how the layer is identified. It leaves meaningful gaps an agent would want filled.

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 only 50%, and layerId is documented merely as 'Layer ID' with no format hint. The description repeats the enum values already present in the schema and does not clarify the ambiguous center_h vs center_v abbreviations, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 gives a clear verb+resource: 'Aligns an object to the canvas artboard', and specifies the alignment modes. It does not distinguish itself from positional siblings like layer_transform or layer_reorder, but the purpose is 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus layer_transform, layer_reorder, or other positioning tools, and no prerequisites or context. Usage is only implied by the verb 'align'.

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