transform_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral-disclosure burden. It explains value encodings but does not state mutation side effects, coordinate systems, undo behavior, permissions, or whether the original layer data is preserved.

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 definition is front-loaded and compact, with the core verb-resource statement followed by a dense but useful value-format mapping. No wording is wasted.

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?

For a required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, value syntax alone is insufficient. The description omits when to use the tool, prerequisites, side effects, and transformation semantics, though return values need not be explained because an output schema exists.

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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully specifies array and semantic-object forms for the values parameter across translate, rotate, and scale, but it leaves session_id, layer_id, and action semantics largely undocumented beyond the enum.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Transform one layer.' It also names the three supported transformations, translate/rotate/scale, which clarifies scope. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings such as layer_resize or document_scale.

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 explains accepted value formats but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives to sibling tools like layer_resize or document_scale. Usage is only implied by the action enum.

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