Save Layer File

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

Annotations only supply generic hints (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false); the description adds concrete behavioral context beyond them: the operation writes a controlled .lyrx, is limited to a single item, and overwriting existing output requires a destructive gate plus exact path confirmation. This tells the agent what could be clobbered and how the guard works. There is mild tension with destructiveHint=false, since the text implies a destructive-gated path, which holds it back from a 5.

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 semicolon-joined sentence that front-loads the action ('save ... as .lyrx') before the overwrite caveat. No filler or repetition, though the phrasing is compact enough to be slightly cryptic.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the basic safety profile. However, for a 7-parameter write tool with 0% schema coverage, the description omits the meaning of most required arguments, leaving the agent to infer them from property names 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only indirectly gestures at output_path/overwrite/confirm_overwrite_path ('controlled .lyrx', 'destructive gate', 'confirm the path') while the five required parameters (aprx_path, map_name, item_kind, item_identifier, output_path) are never explained, and no valid item_kind values are given.

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 (save) and resource (.lyrx layer file) with a clear scope restriction: a single/unique layer or standalone table, not multiple items. The purpose is legible, but it does not name or distinguish itself from any sibling such as copy_layer or export tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 one conditional usage rule: when an output already exists, the destructive gate must be used along with precise path confirmation. That is genuine state-based guidance, but it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives, and there are no exclusions or prerequisites named.

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