Layers

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

Annotations already supply destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate destructiveness. It adds valuable context that batch is undoable and that layer management must happen before animation frames, but it does not disclose what delete/merge actually destroy or how irreversible operations behave outside batch. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences: an operation list, a batch directive, and an animation best-practice warning. Each sentence earns its place and the most actionable guidance is front-loaded. The operation enumeration is long but necessary for a multi-op 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 11-op, 12-param tool with zero required parameters, this description is incomplete. It never states which parameters each operation needs, how a target layer is identified for rename/delete/set/activate, or how reorder/group/merge combine with index, names, and parent. An agent would still have to guess the op-parameter contract, so the tool is not fully callable from this description alone.

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?

The description adds meaning to the batch parameter and clarifies 'set' as visibility/opacity/blend/lock, plus gives a concrete layer-naming pattern. However, with schema description coverage at 50%, it fails to map operations to parameters such as name vs newName, index for reorder, or names for merge/group. The schema partially compensates, but the description does not close the gap.

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 first sentence clearly identifies the resource ('Manage layers') and the explicit operation list ('list', 'create', 'rename', 'delete', etc.) gives a concrete boundary. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as frame or cel, so it misses the top score, but the purpose is unmistakable.

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 description gives strong usage context: use batch to run several operations in one undoable action, building a rig in one call is normal, and layer parts should exist before frames to avoid costly pixel splitting. It does not list exclusions or when to prefer sibling tools, but the practical guidance is clear.

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