precompose_layers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that precomposing typically replaces the selected layers with a new layer, nor does it clarify side effects like destruction of original layer stacking or the need for a target composition. The mutation behavior is implied but not detailed.

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, clear, and front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It efficiently communicates the core purpose.

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 complexity of precomposing (side effects on original layers, creation of a new comp, optional parameters), the description is too minimal. No output schema or annotations help, so the description should explain more about what happens to the selected layers and what moveAttributes does, but it doesn't.

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 60% with some parameters (compId, compName) lacking descriptions. The description does not add any parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, leaving gaps for optional parameters unclear.

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 the action (precompose), the target (selected layers), and the outcome (a new composition). It is specific and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_composition or delete_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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of which composition the operation applies to (e.g., active comp vs. compId). It is entirely absent of usage context.

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