Add Layer

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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that, such as position with three values turning on 3D, anchor being applied before position, fit_to continuously fitting content, and timing semantics for in/out/source_in/stretch.

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 compact and front-loads the operation before moving through option semantics. However, the telegraphic single-paragraph style with semicolon-separated notes makes it denser and less scannable than it could be.

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?

This is a complex creation tool with nine layer kinds and a nested shape object, and the description covers many important option behaviors. It still leaves several fields and interactions unexplained, so it is adequate but not fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it explains many non-obvious options: item_id, center, position/3D behavior, box_size and text_style, anchor ordering, shape, fit_to, fit, and timing fields. It still omits some parameters such as start, duration, name, size, color, light_type, and explicit three_d, so it is strong but incomplete.

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: 'Add a layer,' with comp_id and kind making the operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings such as duplicate_layer or add_shape, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the tool name and option notes; there is no explicit guidance on when to use add_layer versus duplicate_layer or other creation tools. References like 'as set_text' and 'as add_shape' clarify option behavior, not tool selection.

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