Krita Merge Layer Down

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention potential side effects: the bottom layer is modified or replaced, the top layer is removed, layer order changes, and there is no mention of whether this is undoable (likely via krita_undo, but not stated). The description is too brief for a destructive operation.

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?

A single sentence that is efficient and front-loaded with the verb and object. It earns its place, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

Given it is a destructive operation with no annotations and a single underdocumented parameter, the description is incomplete. It does not specify error conditions (e.g., no layer below), return behavior, or prerequisite state (e.g., a visible active layer). Output schema exists but does not compensate for missing behavioral detail.

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 covers 0%, so the description must explain the 'name' parameter. It does not state whether 'name' refers to the top layer, bottom layer, or target layer, nor does it clarify that the layer must exist and be mergeable. This could be confusing for an agent.

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 clearly states the action (merge) and the target (a layer into the one below), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from other layer operations like krita_remove_layer or krita_flatten, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as krita_flatten (which merges all layers) or ase_merge_layer_down (in a different editor). The context implies usage for layer compositing, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over flattening or duplicate-then-merge workflows.

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