modify_layer

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

With no annotations present, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether modifications are applied in place, if there are side effects on other layers, whether undo is supported, or any permission or state requirements. The single sentence provides no behavioral insight beyond the obvious verb.

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?

While short, the description is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. 'Modify layer properties' could be considered tautological given the tool name. It does not earn its place because it adds no value over the name itself. A good concise description would pack useful constraints or examples.

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 20 parameters (including nested objects), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is vastly insufficient. An agent cannot determine what properties are modifiable, what the return type is, or how the parameters interact. Essential context like whether modifications are batched or immediate is missing.

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 20 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no information about any parameter. Parameters like 'compId', 'blendMode', 'position' (a nested object) remain unexplained. The agent has no hints about data types beyond the schema, relationships between parameters, or typical values. This is a critical gap for a tool with many 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 'Modify layer properties' clearly identifies the verb ('modify') and resource ('layer properties'), but fails to distinguish this tool from numerous siblings like 'modify_composition' or 'modify_effect_properties'. The scope is vague; it doesn't specify which layer properties or the context (e.g., in a composition). Given the broad set of layer-related tools, this generic description does not help an agent differentiate intent.

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 'get_layer_info' (to read), 'set_keyframe' (to animate properties), or 'delete_layer' (to remove). There is no mention of prerequisites, typical workflows, or situations where other tools would be more appropriate. This leaves an agent without decision-making context.

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