modify_layer_properties

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 'modify' which implies mutation, but doesn't specify whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. It also doesn't describe the response format or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core action and target, 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (67% coverage), the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, response format, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively.

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 description mentions 'transform properties', which aligns with the 'properties' parameter in the schema, but doesn't add meaningful details beyond what the schema already covers (67% coverage). It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters or provide examples, so it only marginally compensates for the schema's partial documentation.

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 ('modify') and target ('transform properties of a layer'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'modify_layer_3d_properties' or 'modify_text_properties'. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'transform properties' include beyond what's implied by the input schema.

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 'modify_layer_3d_properties' or 'batch_modify_layer_properties'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing composition and layer, or exclusions for specific layer types.

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