createTextLayer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state side effects (does it modify the active composition?), what the tool returns, whether an undo group is created, or permission requirements. For a multi-parameter mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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 that leads with the action and then compresses the feature set efficiently. It stops just short of ideal because the tail-end enumeration reads like a parameter list rather than decision-relevant information, but there is no wasted prose.

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 24-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it never states what is returned, what happens when compName is omitted, or how effects application interacts with the rest of the parameters. The rich schema compensates for parameter meaning, but the behavioral and return-value gaps keep this at a minimum-viable level.

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 100% with 24 well-documented parameters, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description only groups the parameter categories (font, size, colors, tracking, leading, justification, caps, 3D orientation, effects) without adding format or default detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline-3 case.

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 and resource ('Create a 2D or 3D text layer') and enumerates the typography dimensions it covers. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling formatTextLayer or create3DLayer, so an agent must infer the difference, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 guidance and no alternatives named, even though siblings like formatTextLayer (modify existing text) and create3DLayer are natural confusions. The agent is left to infer that this is for the initial creation of a text layer rather than editing one.

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