layer_reorder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool changes layer order, implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to other layers' indices, or error conditions. This is inadequate 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence in Korean ('레이어 순서를 변경합니다' translates to 'Changes layer order'). It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, or what the tool returns, leaving gaps that could hinder an AI agent's correct invocation in a real-world context.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('layerId' and 'newIndex') with descriptions and constraints. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the ordering system or edge cases, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('change order') and resource ('layers'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'object_order' or 'layer_list' that might also deal with ordering or layer management, preventing a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison with sibling tools like 'object_order' or 'layer_list' that might handle similar ordering operations, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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