move_to_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a good job: it discloses that a missing layer is created on top, that elements can be placed at top or bottom, and that relative order and visual position are preserved. It omits permissions, reversibility, and error handling, but covers the key behavioral traits for a move operation.

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?

Two sentences with the core action front-loaded. Parenthetical details are efficient and add useful nuance without excessive length. Slightly dense but no wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the core behavior but omits several parameters (ids, doc_id, preview) and error semantics. An agent can infer most of what to do but lacks full clarity on optional parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the layer parameter accepts a name (creating if missing) or a group/layer id, and that position is top or bottom. However, it does not explain the required ids array, the optional doc_id, or the preview parameter, leaving significant gaps.

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?

States a specific verb (move) and resource (elements into a layer or group), with position control. It distinguishes from siblings like add_elements or z_order by focusing on moving existing elements into a container. Could be more explicit about what distinguishes it from update_elements, but the core purpose is clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like z_order, align, or update_elements. Usage is implied from the description, but there are no stated conditions or exclusions.

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