Set Layer Style

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

The description adds key behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'omitted effects are left unchanged' ensures idempotent-like behavior. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive nature. The description could mention what happens if layer has no style or error conditions, but overall it adds value.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's action and a comprehensive list of effects, followed by behavioral context. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and effect preservation, but lacks context about which layer the tool operates on (presumably the selected layer) and what the expected return is (e.g., success status). Given the complexity of Photoshop and no output schema, this is a gap.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds the semantic insight that omitting an effect leaves it unchanged, which is not in the schema. This is useful but limited; 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 clearly states it is a tool for setting layer effects, lists all nine supported effects, and contrasts with individual effect tools by saying it replaces them. This makes the purpose distinct and specific.

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?

It explains that any combination of effects can be supplied and omitted ones are left unchanged, providing clear guidance on how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternative tools like individual effect tools, though it implies they are replaced.

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