Add shape layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It omits that this is a mutating write operation, where the new layer is inserted in the stack, what happens if the named comp is missing, or whether the project must be saved afterward.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is arguably under-specification rather than disciplined 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?

For a six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, one sentence is not enough. An agent lacks confirmation of write semantics, comp targeting default, layer placement, and any side effects.

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 coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents size, position, and fillColor. The description adds only that the shape is 'filled' and that the shape is either a rectangle or ellipse, restating enum values already in the schema, and says nothing about the undocumented name parameter.

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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (shape layer) plus the payload (a filled rectangle or ellipse), which cleanly separates it from the layer-creating siblings ae_add_text_layer and ae_add_solid_layer. It does not, however, spell out the distinction between this and ae_add_solid_layer for an agent new to the toolset.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The description never mentions prerequisites such as needing a target composition or that the comp parameter can be omitted to fall back to the active composition.

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