precomposeLayers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the new nested sub-composition and custom name but omits important mutation behavior: what happens to source layers, whether they are replaced or moved, how naming conflicts are handled, and whether the active composition is used by default.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. Its terseness is appropriate structurally, though it leaves behavioral gaps that are assessed elsewhere.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is incomplete. An agent lacks sufficient context about side effects, required preconditions, and how the resulting precomp relates to the parent composition.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description only echoes 'selected layers' and 'custom name' without adding clarity about the alternative layerNames/layerIndices inputs or the compName default.

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 states a specific verb and resource: precompose layers into a new nested sub-composition. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from related composition-creation or layer-manipulation siblings.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no explanation of how layerNames and layerIndices interact or should be chosen. The phrase 'selected layers' implies a selection workflow but does not clarify it.

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