create_layer

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

The annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description explicitly asserts 'Não é destrutivo' and describes idempotent, additive behavior. This is a direct conflict between the description and the structured annotation, which forces a 1 regardless of which side is factually correct.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its idempotency, then clearly sectioned into QUANDO USAR / Parâmetros / Exemplo. The dense constraint lists all earn their place, though the whole block is on the long side for a 3-parameter 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers creation semantics, idempotency, permitted parameters and an example. The one missing piece is which document context the layer is created in, which matters given siblings like set_active_document and list_documents.

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%, so the description carries the full burden — and it does: it documents the forbidden characters for 'name', the valid color forms (ACI index 1-255 or named colors) and the linetype loading requirement including auto-loading of HIDDEN/CENTER/DASHED/PHANTOM. This meaning is available nowhere in the schema.

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+resource ('Cria uma camada') and adds the key behavioral fact that it is idempotent ('se já existir, não altera nada e avisa'). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling 'dxf_create_layer', which an agent will need to disambiguate.

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?

Provides an explicit 'QUANDO USAR' clause placing the tool before drawing/inserting into a new layer, which is exactly the routing information an agent needs. It does not name an alternative or a when-not condition (e.g. how it relates to dxf_create_layer or list_layers).

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