create_transition

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The phrase 'Create a transition effect layer' is too vague to convey any side effects, auth requirements, or constraints (e.g., does it require a specific composition? Does it affect existing layers?). The description fails to provide essential behavioral context.

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 under-specified. It does not earn its place because it provides minimal utility. A helpful description should include key behavioral details, not just a restatement of the tool name.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It lacks information about return values, required parameters, dependencies, or any operational context. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. The input schema includes 6 parameters (type, color, compId, easing, compName, duration) with enums and nested objects, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The agent receives no help in understanding parameter semantics.

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 'Create a transition effect layer' clearly states the action (create) and resource (transition effect layer), but it is not specific enough to differentiate this tool from other layer-creation tools like add_solid_layer or add_text_layer. It implies a distinct type of layer but does not explain what makes a transition effect layer unique.

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 such as add_solid_layer or add_text_layer. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where a transition effect layer is appropriate.

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