precompose_layers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action but does not describe side effects: whether original layers are removed, whether the new composition is automatically added to the project, or if the original composition is altered. This leaves an agent unaware of mutation consequences.

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, short sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise, though it could be slightly expanded to improve completeness without sacrificing brevity.

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 has 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the minimal description is insufficient. It does not explain what the function returns (e.g., the new composition object), any prerequisites (e.g., layers must exist), or post-conditions. Agents would lack operational 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?

The description adds no parameter information beyond what the input schema already provides. With only 60% schema description coverage, two parameters (compId and compName) lack descriptions entirely, and the tool description does not clarify their purpose or usage. The description fails to compensate for these gaps.

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 'Precompose selected layers into a new composition', using a specific verb ('precompose') and resource ('layers into a new composition'). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like add_layer, delete_layer, or modify_composition, which perform different operations.

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. For example, it does not mention that this operation creates a new composition from selected layers, while sibling tools like duplicate_composition or create_composition exist. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are given.

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