layer_set_shadow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and it falls short: it does not state that this is a mutation, whether it overwrites existing shadow values or merges them, what 'none' does, or that layerId is required. Only the preset list hints at behavior ('none' implies removal), which is minimal.

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?

One compact sentence with the operation front-loaded, no filler. It is slightly dense by combining purpose and parameter list but each element earns its place given the schema.

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 no-annotation mutation tool with no output schema, the description should disclose mutability, overwrite semantics, and any constraints like layer type or missing-layer handling. None of these are present, leaving the agent under-informed about behavior.

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 83%, so the schema already documents blur, color, offsets and enum for preset. The description adds the preset value names, which duplicates the schema enum, and restates the attribute list, adding little beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Clear verb (adds/updates) plus resource (drop shadow on a layer), with the specific configurable attributes enumerated. It does not reference any sibling tool, but the domain is distinct enough from siblings like filter_apply_preset or layer_set_gradient that confusion is unlikely.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no mention of when to prefer preset vs explicit parameters, and no pointer to alternatives such as layer_set_gradient or filter_apply_preset for other layer styling. Usage context is entirely left to inference.

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