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 burden for a mutation tool. It never states whether transforms are undoable (relevant given session_undo exists), what permissions or session state are required, or what happens on an out-of-range rotation or scale. Only the value encodings are disclosed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then the argument grammar. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

The output schema covers return values, and the values encoding is well documented, so the core invocation is clear. For an unannotated mutation tool with a required session_id, however, the absence of any statement about prerequisites, side effects, or undo behavior leaves meaningful gaps.

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%, yet the description supplies the exact encoding of the 'values' array per action enum: translate=[dx,dy] pixels, rotate=[degrees] or [degrees,cx,cy], scale=[x0,y0,x1,y1]. That resolves the single genuinely ambiguous parameter; session_id and layer_id are self-evident from their names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Transform one layer") and immediately qualifies it with the coordinate conventions for each mode. It is clearly distinct from siblings like layer_update or layer_reorder, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to prefer transform_layer over layer_update, selection_set, or filter_apply, nor whether a session must be open first. The per-action value formats imply the tool's scope but do not route the agent among alternatives.

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