add_text_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 action ('Add') but doesn't clarify if this is a mutation (likely yes), what permissions are required, whether it's reversible, or what the output looks like (e.g., success/failure, layer ID). For a tool that modifies compositions, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with the core action. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 adding a layer (a mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling, return values, or how it differs from sibling tools, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and 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%, meaning all parameters (compId, text, name) are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or providing examples. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate but minimal value added by the description.

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 ('text layer to a composition'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'add_text_layer_advanced' by being a basic version, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_text_layer_advanced' or other layer-adding tools (e.g., 'add_shape_layer'). The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing composition, or when this simpler version is preferred over the advanced one.

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