add_shape_layer

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 states the tool adds a layer, implying a write operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, if it modifies existing layers, what happens on failure, or the expected return format. The phrase 'customizable properties' is vague and doesn't detail constraints like validation or defaults.

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 that front-loads the core purpose ('Add a shape layer to a composition') and adds a qualifying phrase ('with customizable properties'). There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from context.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like how 'shapeType' interacts with 'properties'. For a tool that creates visual elements with many options, more guidance on typical use cases or limitations is needed.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, thoroughly documenting all parameters and nested properties. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'customizable properties' which aligns with the schema's detailed 'properties' object but doesn't provide additional context like usage examples or parameter interdependencies.

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 a shape layer') and target ('to a composition'), with the additional detail 'with customizable properties' hinting at configurability. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_solid_layer' or 'add_text_layer' by specifying shape creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with tools like 'add_shape_path' or 'convert_mask_to_shape'.

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), exclusions (e.g., not for text or masks), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'add_shape_path' or 'create_shape_from_path', leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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