add_adjustment_layer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add an adjustment layer' without any mention of side effects, required context (like which composition gets the layer), permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. This leaves the agent largely in the dark about behavior beyond the obvious action.

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 extremely concise—a single four-word sentence. While this avoids verbosity, the brevity comes at the cost of valuable context. It is not that it wastes words, but it fails to justify its existence by providing more than what the tool name already conveys. A 3 is appropriate for the size being minimally adequate.

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's simplicity (adding a layer) and the existence of many similar sibling tools, the description should at least mention the target composition requirement or the typical use case. It does not. With no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter guidance, the description is incomplete and likely insufficient for correct invocation without additional context.

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 only 33% (only the 'name' parameter has a description). The tool description adds no parameter information whatsoever. It does not clarify the roles of 'compId' and 'compName', nor how they relate to the target composition. With such low coverage and no compensatory text, the agent cannot infer parameter semantics from the description.

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 verb 'add' and the resource 'adjustment layer', so the agent understands the basic action. However, among many sibling tools like add_solid_layer or add_text_layer, it does not explain what distinguishes an adjustment layer, missing a chance to differentiate.

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 information is provided about when to use this tool versus any of the many other add_*_layer tools. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a composition must exist), nor any alternative suggestions. The agent must rely solely on the tool name for guidance.

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