add_null_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds a layer, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover permissions, side effects (e.g., changes to composition structure), or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the key action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity of a mutation tool (adding a layer) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what a null object layer is, its typical use cases, or what the tool returns (e.g., layer ID). This leaves the agent with insufficient context for effective 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (compId, name, is3D) with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the tool acts on a composition, which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3 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 the resource ('null object layer to a composition'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from sibling tools like 'add_shape_layer' or 'add_solid_layer' beyond specifying the layer type as 'null object', which is somewhat specific but could be more explicit about what distinguishes a null object layer from other layer types.

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 what a 'null object layer' is used for (e.g., as a parent or controller for other layers), nor does it reference sibling tools like 'add_shape_layer' or 'add_solid_layer' for comparison. This leaves the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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