set_track_matte

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. It states 'Set track matte for a layer', which implies a mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 zero waste, clearly front-loaded with the tool's purpose. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward tool, 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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and details on what the tool returns or any side effects. For a tool that modifies layer properties, more information is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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, with clear parameter descriptions and an enum for 'matteType'. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, as it only restates the tool's purpose without elaborating on parameter usage or semantics. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when 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 verb 'set' and the resource 'track matte for a layer', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_layer_blend_mode' or 'set_mask_properties', which might involve similar layer property modifications, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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, such as other layer property setters like 'set_layer_blend_mode' or 'set_mask_properties'. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely implied from the tool name and parameters.

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