add_shape_layer

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Add a shape layer to a composition' without mentioning side effects, required composition references, parameter interplay, or what happens with multiple unspecified valid combinations. The operation is clearly a mutation but lacks details about layer ordering, overwrite behavior, or error conditions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It is concise and immediately understandable, earning high marks for efficiency.

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 the tool has 12 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is inadequate. It fails to explain which parameters are shape-specific, how to identify the target composition (compId vs compName), or mention that all parameters are optional. Rich guidance is needed but entirely absent.

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 58%, and the description text adds no parameter meaning. It does not clarify how parameters like size, position, compId vs compName, or shape-specific options (innerRadius, points) are used together. The schema partially describes parameters, but the description fails to compensate for the gaps or add insights beyond the structured data.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Add' and clear resource 'shape layer' with target 'composition', making it distinct from sibling add_*_layer tools like add_text_layer or add_solid_layer. It immediately communicates the core function without ambiguity.

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 when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. However, the tool name and description imply it is for adding shape layers, distinguishing from other layer types. Usage context is implied by the resource type, but no exclusions or comparisons to similar tools are provided.

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