center-layers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Center') without revealing that this modifies layer positions, how centering is calculated (e.g., to composition center), or what happens when conflicting parameters (allLayers, selectedOnly, layerName) are combined. This lack of safety/edge-case context is a notable gap.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and the three target scopes in a compact list. It contains no filler, wasted words, or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

This is a mutation tool with five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too terse to be complete: it does not specify how centering is applied, what happens with conflicting options, or what the result/return value is. For an agent to invoke this correctly, additional behavioral details are necessary.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter individually described, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond mapping the scopes ('one layer' to layerName/layerIndex, 'selected layers' to selectedOnly, 'all layers' to allLayers), but it does not explain parameter combinations or precedence rules, which would be useful beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Center') and clearly specifies the resource and scope: 'one layer, selected layers, or all layers in a composition.' It distinguishes the tool's function from sibling tools, none of which mention centering.

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 implies when to use the tool (when centering layers is needed) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. It also does not clarify the precedence of parameters like allLayers vs selectedOnly, or layerName vs layerIndex, leaving potential ambiguity.

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