Layer operations

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add two genuinely behavioral facts (opacity uses ordered dithering and introduces no new colors; layers are per-frame), but it says nothing about whether 'remove' is destructive/undoable, what lock prevents, or what any operation returns.

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 tight sentences with the operation list front-loaded and the caveats (dithering, per-frame existence) trailing. No filler or redundancy.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers action semantics but omits safety/irreversibility of remove, permission or lock semantics, and any expectation about the response, leaving meaningful gaps an agent must guess at.

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 71%, so the schema documents frame, layer, project and allFrames. The description adds real meaning for the opacity action and the per-frame nature of layers, but leaves newName (undocumented in both schema and description) and the interaction of allFrames with show/hide/lock unaddressed.

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 concrete resource (layers) and enumerates the exact operations (add/remove/rename/show/hide/lock/opacity), so an agent knows precisely what domain this tool covers. It stops short of naming a sibling it is not (e.g., sprite_frame for frame-level work), leaving that inference implicit.

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 verb list implies when to reach for this tool, and 'Layers exist per frame' hints at scope boundaries, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as sprite_frame or sprite_draw_ops.

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