Creates a named CAD layer with optional color to organize drawing geometry; layers are keyed by name, with default layer '0'.
Create a named layer with optional color (e.g. #ff0000). Layers are keyed by name; default geometry layer is "0".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| color | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it partially delivers: it discloses that layers are keyed by name (implying uniqueness semantics) and that a default geometry layer '0' exists. It omits error behavior on duplicate names, persistence, and whether the operation requires a transaction, which are meaningful for a mutation tool.
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, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded before the keying detail. Every clause adds information.
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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, parameters, and keying but leaves return values, duplicate-name behavior, and permissions unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does reasonably: 'name' is explained as the key (implying required/unique), and 'color' is given a concrete format example '#ff0000'. It still doesn't state accepted color formats exhaustively or the failure mode for an empty name, keeping it below 5.
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 named layer'), so an agent immediately knows what the tool does and can distinguish it from delete_layer/rename_layer/set_layer_color. It does not, however, explicitly name or differentiate itself against those sibling tools, so it stops short of the 5 tier.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives like create_layer vs. the many other create_* tools or autocad_list_layers. The note about the default '0' layer is domain context, not usage routing, so this is essentially no guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.