add_solid_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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: the tool performs a write operation (adding a layer), specifies the layer ordering (added on top), and mentions the need for reordering if used for backgrounds. However, it doesn't cover potential errors, permissions, or rate limits, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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 highly concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides critical usage notes. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary elaboration, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 moderate complexity (adding a layer with configurable properties), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral aspects, but lacks details on return values or error handling, which slightly reduces completeness.

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, providing details for all 5 parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already documents, such as explaining 'compId' or 'color' further. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for gaps.

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 solid color layer') and the target resource ('to a composition'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'add_shape_layer' or 'add_text_layer' by specifying the layer type. It provides specific functionality that is not just a restatement of the name.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: it notes that new layers are added on top (Layer 1) and advises to create backgrounds last or use 'reorder_layers' as an alternative. This gives clear context on when and how to use this tool versus other options.

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