Add solid layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses one trait beyond the schema: omitting dimensions defaults to full composition size. But it omits where the layer is inserted in the stack, what the call returns (a new layer id/index), and any permission or project-state requirements.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The primary action comes first and the default-behavior note follows, which is the right ordering.

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 five-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description is too thin. It omits return value, layer placement, and the interaction between omitted width/height and the active composition, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 only 40%, so the schema documents comp and color but leaves name, width, and height undocumented. The description partially compensates by explaining the width/height default ('full composition size'), but says nothing about the name parameter or color semantics beyond the schema's own note.

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?

Clear specific verb+resource: 'Add a solid layer to a composition.' The term 'solid layer' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling ae_add_text_layer and ae_add_shape_layer. However, it never explicitly contrasts with those siblings, keeping it below the top tier.

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 vs when-not guidance. It does not state prerequisites such as whether an active composition must exist, nor does it route the agent away from ae_add_text_layer / ae_add_shape_layer for non-solid layers. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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