Set layer transform

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 the keyframe-vs-static branch triggered by 'time', which is real behavior beyond the schema. It does not say whether omitted properties are left untouched or reset, whether existing keyframes are overwritten, or what permissions/undo semantics apply to this mutation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed immediately by the one non-obvious behavior. Nothing is padded or redundant, though the brevity borders on under-specification for an 8-parameter mutation tool.

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 an 8-parameter write tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: whether unspecified properties remain unchanged, whether values are absolute or relative, and what the effect on existing keyframes is. The schema enforces additionalProperties=false but the description does not help the agent reason about partial updates.

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 63%, with comp, time, layer, scale and rotation documented but opacity, position and anchorPoint left bare. The description adds the consequence of 'time' (creates a keyframe rather than a static value), which enriches that parameter, but contributes no meaning for the three undocumented transform parameters.

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+resource: 'Set transform properties of a layer.' This is clearly distinct from the add_*/list_*/render siblings, none of which mutate transform values. It stops short of enumerating which transform properties (position, scale, rotation, opacity, anchorPoint), leaving the agent to open the schema for the full picture.

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 sentence about 'time' explains a conditional behavior (keyframe vs. static) but frames it as mechanics rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no statement about which situations call for this tool, no prerequisite for an active/selected composition, and no note that at least one transform property should accompany 'layer'.

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