rasterize_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that effects and mask are baked into the result, which is useful information about what gets consumed. However, it never states that the operation is destructive/irreversible or what happens to the original layer's editable properties.

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 front-loaded sentence with the operation and its scope stated immediately. No filler or redundancy; every clause carries meaning.

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 destructive mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is thin. It omits irreversibility, permissions, the fate of the mask/effects after conversion, and the secondary parameter, leaving gaps an agent needs before safely invoking it.

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%, so the description must compensate. It usefully constrains the 'layer' parameter to text/shape/paint layer types, adding meaning beyond the bare string schema. But the optional 'project' parameter is entirely 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 (rasterize) and resource (a text/shape/paint layer with effects and mask), so the agent understands it converts a layer to pixels. It differentiates somewhat from bulk siblings like flatten/merge_down by scoping to a single layer, though it doesn't name them.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't mention alternatives like flatten (whole document) or merge_down (combine two layers), leaving the agent to infer when rasterizing a single layer is appropriate.

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