add_solid_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates the create/mutation behavior and the entity type, but it does not disclose how composition selection works when compId/compName are omitted, nor does it mention defaults like duration/startTime behavior.

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 filler or redundant wording. It communicates the core purpose immediately and earns its place.

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?

With 8 parameters, nested color input, and the broader add-layer sibling family, the description is minimally viable but leaves some context unexplained, such as target composition selection and default layer timeline behavior. It is not seriously deficient because the schema covers all parameters, but it is not rich enough for complex selection scenarios.

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?

The input schema already has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Add') and specific resource ('solid color layer') with a clear target ('to a composition'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_text_layer or add_shape_layer.

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 usage context is implied by describing the layer type, but the description does not explicitly say when to choose this over other layer-add tools or mention any preconditions such as needing an open composition. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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