set_layer_parent

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 sets relationships but doesn't cover critical aspects: whether this is a destructive mutation (likely yes, given 'set'), what permissions are needed, if changes are reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid indices), or the expected outcome. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the task, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 (mutating layer relationships) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain behavioral traits, usage context, or what happens upon execution (e.g., does it return confirmation or error details?). For a mutation tool in a creative environment like After Effects, more guidance 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, clearly documenting all three parameters. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what a 'parent-child relationship' entails in this context or how indices work). 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 ('Set parent-child relationship') and the resource ('between layers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'reorder_layers' or 'modify_layer_properties', which might also affect layer hierarchy, so it doesn't reach the highest 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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing composition or layers), exclusions, or compare it to related tools like 'reorder_layers' for hierarchy changes. This leaves the agent with minimal context for appropriate invocation.

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