krita_move_layer

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations: it rejects cycles and locked/animated subtrees, provides no guaranteed undo transaction, and instructs retry semantics via operation_id reuse. These are non-obvious, operationally important details that annotations alone do not convey.

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?

Four dense sentences, with the core action and constraints front-loaded. There is no filler, and every clause adds operational value.

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 description is largely complete for a reorder tool: it covers constraints, safety, idempotency, and the two non-obvious optional parameters. The only notable gap is that behavior when above_node_id is omitted is not explicitly stated, which could leave the default placement ambiguous.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining parent_node_id default behavior ('Omitted parent means document root') and above_node_id's role ('selects a sibling to insert above'). It also ties operation_id to retry behavior. Generic identifiers like instance_id and document_id are not explained, but they are conventional enough to be inferable.

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: 'Reorder a paint layer or group within its document.' It also distinguishes itself from pixel-moving tools by explicitly noting it changes stacking order without translating pixels, and mentions constraints like cycle rejection. This clearly differentiates it from siblings such as krita_transform_layer.

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 gives clear context: this tool is for stacking-order changes only, not pixel transforms. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide when-not-to-use rules, but the phrase 'without translating pixels' is a strong behavioral cue that routes an agent away from transform tools.

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