Combinar / rasterizar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Merge/stamp/rasterize are typically destructive, irreversible flattening operations, yet the description says nothing about loss of editability, required permissions, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the primary operation and enumerates the modes efficiently. It is compact, though the mode enumeration with inline syntax is slightly cryptic.

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 6-parameter, multi-mode tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not state which parameters apply to which mode, what the result is, or any constraints, leaving much of the calling contract 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?

Schema coverage is only 33%, so the description should compensate. It mentions mode:'stamp' and the rasterize options, but refers to the parameter as 'what' when the schema names it 'rasterize' – a naming mismatch that can actively mislead an agent. It also never explains how name/layer/layers map to the merge mode.

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 names three concrete operations (merge layers, stamp, rasterize) with a specific verb+resource, so an agent can tell what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like ps_group or ps_create_layer, which also combine/restructure layers.

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 three modes are described inline, which implicitly tells the agent what each mode does, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance and no routing to alternatives. An agent must infer when to choose merge vs stamp vs rasterize.

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