Precompose

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the default for move_attributes, exactly what gets relocated (transforms, effects, masks), and the single-layer restriction when the flag is false.

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 sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The nested parenthetical and quoted 'leave all attributes' phrase make the second sentence slightly harder to parse than necessary.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description answers the key behavioral question of where attributes end up. It omits what the new comp is called (the name parameter) and any note on return value, but the annotations already carry the safety story.

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 coverage is only 33% (only layer_ids carries 'Same comp'). The description compensates well for move_attributes, giving its default and the precise meaning of both values, but says nothing about name, which is undocumented in both schema and description. Partial compensation for a low-coverage schema.

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 (precompose), the source resource (layers from the same comp) and the outcome (a new comp). No sibling in the list performs this operation, so an agent can distinguish it from duplicate_layer, add_layer or create_comp without opening a schema.

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 scope constraint ('from the same comp') and the conditional rule for move_attributes=false imply when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative. Guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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