add_shape_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 of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention any side effects, error conditions (e.g., 'composition must exist'), or what happens if parameters are omitted. The single sentence 'Add a shape layer to a composition' gives no behavioral insight beyond the 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 a single sentence, which is concise but insufficient for a tool with 12 parameters and no annotations. Important information is omitted including parameter relationships, default behaviors, and return type. The brevity sacrifices completeness for conciseness.

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 the tool (12 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It fails to address prerequisites (e.g., needing a composition), error states, or what happens when the layer is added (return value, layer index, etc.). The user or agent would have to infer critical context from the schema alone.

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%, with 7 of 12 parameters having descriptions. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain relationships between parameters (e.g., innerRadius only applies to star) or clarify ambiguous fields like 'points' or 'position'. The description fails to compensate for the uncovered parameters.

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 ('add') and the resource ('shape layer') to a composition. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_solid_layer or add_text_layer by specifying 'shape layer'. However, it could be more specific about the shape type possibilities (e.g., rectangle, ellipse) which are in the parameters.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_solid_layer, add_text_layer). There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when a shape layer is appropriate. The description is purely functional without any usage direction.

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