ae_center_layers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that the anchor point is mutated by default, that centering is based on visual content bounds rather than the bounding box, and that the whole operation collapses into 'one undo step' — useful for an agent reasoning about reversibility. Gaps remain: no mention of how expressions or parenting on position/anchor are treated, and no statement of what is returned.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the non-obvious default behavior, then the undo cost. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema.

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 simple transform tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, the default anchor behavior, and the undo footprint — enough to invoke safely. It does not describe return values, which the agent must infer since no output schema exists, and axis values go unexplained in both places.

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 80%, so the schema already documents all, comp, anchor, and layers; the only undocumented parameter is axis. The description adds nuance about the anchor parameter's default (true) and its sourceRectAtTime behavior, but does not compensate for the missing axis documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Center layers in the composition') and immediately explains the mechanism that makes the operation non-obvious (anchor point moved to content center via sourceRectAtTime). No sibling tool performs centering, so there is nothing to differentiate from. An agent can tell exactly what this does.

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 never says when to reach for this tool versus manipulating position/anchor through ae_set_property, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. The only 'guidance' is default-value behavior (anchor defaults to true), which is parameter semantics, not usage context.

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