ae_add_shape_layer

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the additive behavior 'Add a shape layer to a composition,' which is the core side effect. However, it does not mention requirements like an open project or existing composition, layer ordering behavior, default positioning, or failure outcomes.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It efficiently communicates the essential operation while leaving parameter details to the schema.

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?

The description is adequate for the core creation action, and the rich input schema covers parameter meaning. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the agent gets no guidance about selection among sibling add-layer tools, no mention of required project state, and no indication of what a successful call returns.

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 92%, so the schema already documents nearly all parameters. The description adds only the relationship between the tool and the 'rectangle'/'ellipse' shape_type values, which is already an enum in the schema. No further parameter semantics are provided beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Add'), a clear resource ('shape layer'), and the concrete shape types ('rectangle or ellipse'), all anchored to a target composition. This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like ae_add_text_layer, ae_add_solid_layer, and ae_add_null_layer.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. With many sibling layer-creation tools, the agent is left to infer selection purely from the tool name and the phrase 'rectangle or ellipse.'

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