Create a new group from same-level layers to manage opacity, blend modes, masks, and effects collectively; non-pass-through groups restrict adjustments to their contents.
Put layers (same level) into a new group. Groups have their own opacity, blend (default pass_through), mask and effects; an adjustment inside a non pass-through group affects only the group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| layers | Yes | ||
| project | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the resulting group's traits (own opacity, blend defaulting to pass_through, mask, effects, and that adjustments inside a non-pass-through group are scoped to the group), but omits reversibility, required permissions, and the return/result of the operation.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and the second sentence adds substantive semantic detail rather than filler. No wasted words, though the behavioral sentence could be trimmed.
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?
A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage. The description explains group behavior but leaves the two non-layer parameters undocumented and gives no indication of the result or whether the operation is undoable.
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 0% for 3 parameters (name, layers, project). The description only echoes the 'layers' argument and its same-level constraint; it adds nothing about what 'name' or 'project' do, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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: 'Put layers (same level) into a new group.' An agent can tell this is the grouping operation versus the sibling 'ungroup', though the description never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as 'ungroup'. The only hint is the parenthetical 'same level' constraint on the layers, which implies a usage condition but doesn't articulate one.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.