reorder_layers

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. While 'Change the order' implies a mutation operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, whether the change is immediate or reversible, what happens to other layers' indices, or potential side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, updated layer list), potential errors, or behavioral nuances like how indices are handled after reordering. For a tool that modifies data, more context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (compId, layerIndex, newIndex) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 ('Change the order') and resource ('layers in a composition'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_layer' or 'modify_layer_properties' by focusing specifically on reordering. However, it doesn't specify whether this affects z-index, timeline order, or another type of ordering, which prevents a perfect score.

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. With siblings like 'modify_layer_properties' or 'batch_modify_layer_properties' that might handle similar operations, there's no indication of when reorder_layers is the appropriate choice. No prerequisites, constraints, or comparison to other tools are mentioned.

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