align_layer

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation of the layer transform but says nothing about permissions, undo behavior, whether it errors on a missing layer/project, or what happens to margin when h/v are null.

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 with the core action front-loaded followed by the enum shorthand and the null rule. Efficient, though the compressed notation is slightly cryptic for a reader unfamiliar with the tool.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters at 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits how the target layer is identified, the role of project, and any failure or side-effect behavior.

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 0% and there are no enums, so the description adds real value by enumerating h (left/center/right), v (top/middle/bottom) and explaining margin units (px) plus the null semantics. However, the required `layer` parameter and `project` parameter are never mentioned, leaving two of five parameters undocumented.

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 target (align a layer to the canvas), which is distinct from transform/move siblings like set_transform or move_layer. It is clear what the operation does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to align versus using set_transform or move_layer for precise positioning, nor any stated preconditions (e.g. an open project or a selected layer). Alignment intent is only implied by the name and phrasing.

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