design_create_motion_path

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals only that a 'guide layer' is created; it says nothing about whether the target layer is modified, whether keyframes or a timeline are involved, whether existing layers are affected, or what happens if targetLayerId is omitted even though it is optional.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it is also the entirety of the definition, so its brevity reflects under-specification as much as tightness.

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 7-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not say what is returned (presumably a new layer ID), whether the created guide layer conflicts with existing guides, or how the animation relates to the timeline/keyframe tools in the sibling set.

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 86%, so the schema already documents points, easing, showPath, pathColor, alignRotation, and targetLayerId defaults. The description only echoes 'series of points' and 'target layer', adding no semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Create a motion path guide layer') plus the effect ('animates a target layer along a series of points'), so the agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as design_add_path, design_add_guide, or design_distribute_along_path, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g., a target layer must already exist), and no mention of alternatives for animating along a path. The animation framing weakly implies the use case, but the agent must infer it and has no routing guidance among several path/guide siblings.

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