add_landscape_layer

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the operation is additive, re-registering an existing layer is a no-op that returns already_present=true, and the inverse tool is identified. This is rich disclosure; only a slight tension between the described duplicate-handling and idempotentHint=false keeps it 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?

Three tightly written sentences plus a returns block, with the core action and its ordering constraint front-loaded. Every sentence carries load (purpose, sequencing, duplicate handling, sibling routing, return shape) with zero filler.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description supplies the exact return shape (landscape_actor_name, layer_info_path, layer_name, layer_added, already_present, target_layer_count), plus ordering, duplicate semantics, and inverse/query siblings. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret this tool is missing.

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 100% for both parameters, so the schema already documents layer_info_path and landscape_actor_name fully. The description implies the asset/layer relationship but adds no format, path syntax, or default behavior beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (register) and resource (a LandscapeLayerInfo asset as a target weight/paint layer on a landscape), and explains the downstream effect on the terrain and the material's LandscapeLayerBlend. It distinguishes itself from the closely related siblings create_landscape_layer_info and paint_landscape_layer by name, so an agent can tell them apart without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly places the call as 'Step 2 of three, between create_landscape_layer_info and paint_landscape_layer' and gives the reason ('painting a layer that was never registered writes nothing'). It also names the inverse (remove_landscape_layer) and the inspection tool (get_landscape_layers), so both when-to-use and alternatives are covered.

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