add_solid_layer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the action but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it replaces existing layers, auto-selects, or requires certain permissions). There is no mention of what happens if required parameters are missing or how the color's RGB ranges are enforced.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action. It is appropriately concise for a tool with a detailed schema covering the parameters.

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 (8 parameters, nested color object, many sibling tools) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It provides no usage examples, explains no return values, and gives no detail on how the tool interacts with the composition (e.g., adding at the top vs. bottom of the layer stack).

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 has 100% description coverage for 8 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description of color adding context about 0-1 range and default behavior for width/height (defaults to comp width/height) is helpful but adds minimal extra beyond the schema.

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 tool adds a solid color layer to a composition. The verb 'add' plus the resource 'solid layer' and target 'composition' make the purpose unambiguous. While it distinguishes this from other layer-adding siblings, it doesn't elaborate on what makes a solid layer unique versus shape or text layers.

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 like add_shape_layer or add_text_layer. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., a composition must exist before adding a layer) or scenarios where a solid layer is preferred. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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