Transform Layer

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive. The description reinforces that the tool applies a transform, which is a mutation. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, auth requirements) beyond what annotations provide, so it meets the basic bar but adds no extra transparency.

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 with zero wasted words. It lists the supported actions succinctly and gives a clear instruction about parameter usage. Front-loaded with purpose and actions, it achieves high information density.

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 explains the tool's capability to combine multiple transforms in one place, which is helpful. No output schema exists, but the description does not elaborate on return values. For a simple transform tool that likely returns nothing or a success indication, this is adequate. It could mention that the layer is modified in place.

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 clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds a note about supplying only relevant parameters, which is a usage hint rather than semantic enrichment. It does not meaningfully expand understanding of parameter values or constraints beyond the schema, warranting a baseline of 3.

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 that the tool applies transforms to layers and lists supported actions (move, scale, rotate, etc.). It identifies the resource (layer) and the verb (applies transform). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like ps_align or ps_resize, which could be confused for specific transform actions.

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?

The description instructs to 'supply only the parameters relevant to your action,' which provides some usage guidance. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use context, and no alternatives are mentioned. The agent must infer usage from the list of actions alone.

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