Add a GDevelop scene layer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds the 'editable' qualifier and an example, but does not disclose potential naming conflicts, required permissions, or effects on existing layers. Since annotations cover the basic safety profile, this is acceptable but not enriched.

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 that directly states the operation and provides a helpful example. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The tool is simple with 3 well-named parameters, and the description gives a clear purpose and example. However, it does not mention edge cases like duplicate layer names, whether the scene must already exist, or what the success/failure behavior looks like (no output schema). For a straightforward add operation, the description is adequate but has 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 description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of parameters. The parameter names (projectId, sceneName, layerName) are self-explanatory, giving some implicit meaning, but the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions. It adds no value beyond the names already present.

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 clearly states the verb 'Add' and the resource 'an editable 2D layer to a scene', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like add_scene_object (which adds objects) and add_object_instance, and the example 'for example a HUD layer' further clarifies typical usage.

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 a concrete example (HUD layer) that implies when the tool is useful, and the sibling tool context (add_scene_object, set_scene_events) helps differentiate it from alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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