layer_transform

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies mutation but does not state that only layerId is required (partial updates), whether provided values are absolute replacements, whether flips toggle or set state, or whether the change is undoable. For a mutating 8-parameter tool, this leaves key behavioral questions unanswered.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates capabilities without padding. Efficient, though the enumeration is slightly dense with slash/comma lists.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the parameter surface but omits the operational context an agent needs: partial-update semantics, absolute vs relative values, and return behavior. Adequate minimum, but with clear gaps.

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 88%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter, including the blendMode enum. The description's operation list loosely maps to those parameters but adds no semantics beyond the schema (e.g., it does not clarify unit or relative-vs-absolute behavior for x/y/angle). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ("Transforms") against a specific resource ("a layer") and enumerates the exact operations covered: move X/Y, rotate, flip, opacity, blend mode. An agent can tell what it does at a glance, though it never distinguishes itself from siblings like layer_align or layer_set_state that may also touch position, opacity, or blend mode.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives despite clear overlap with layer_align (position) and layer_set_state (opacity/blend mode). The agent must infer selection from the tool list alone.

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