Create layer stack (N-layer compositor)

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

The description discloses the exact node structure ('Each layer is a Select TOP... → a Level TOP... layers above the base each get their own 2-input Composite TOP'), exposed controls (Opacity, Blend, Mute, Solo), and the terminal Null node, going well beyond the minimal annotation cues. It also specifies the return payload (summary + JSON block with paths, errors, preview image).

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 detailed but each sentence adds operational value, covering purpose, architecture, parameter modes, controls, and return value. It is appropriately sized for a tool that builds a multi-node network, though slightly long compared to minimal tools.

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?

The description covers all relevant aspects: input modes (explicit vs count), node generation logic, exposed UI controls, output chain, and return format with error/warning reporting. No output schema exists, but the description thoroughly fills that gap.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the relationship between layers and count, the behavior when source is omitted, and how parameters map to the node chain (e.g., opacity becomes a Level TOP parameter). This elevates it above baseline.

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 opens with 'Build a VJ-style N-layer compositor' which immediately identifies the verb, resource, and style. It further details the node chain (Select TOP → Level TOP → Composite TOP) and control strip, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_layer_mixer.

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?

It provides clear context for parameter selection: 'Pass layers (bottom-first) for an explicit stack, or omit it to build count empty test layers.' However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternative compositors or mixers, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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