add_adjustment_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool performs an addition operation, implying creation/mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the composition doesn't exist, whether the layer is added at a specific position, or what the return value might be. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an adjustment layer is, what it does, where it's placed in the composition, or what happens after addition. For a tool in a creative suite with many layer types, more context is needed to guide proper use.

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 100%, with both parameters (compId and name) clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what 'adjustment layer' means in terms of parameters or provide context for the name default. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Add') and target resource ('adjustment layer to a composition'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_camera_layer' or 'add_solid_layer' by specifying the type of layer being added. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling tools or mention what an adjustment layer does functionally.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing composition), when this is appropriate versus other layer types, or what an adjustment layer enables. With many sibling tools for adding different layer types, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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