create_data_layer_asset

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the asset is saved to disk and documents the created/already_exists/saved result flags, which hints at behavior on pre-existing assets – useful context but not a rich behavioral account (no permissions, no overwrite semantics).

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return shape. The inline return object is dense but earns its place given no output schema exists; nothing is wasted.

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 create tool with no output schema, documenting the return fields is a genuine addition and covers the response side. What is missing is context an agent needs to invoke it correctly: the relationship to DataLayer instances, whether an existing asset is overwritten, and where the asset lands relative to siblings.

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%, with each of the four parameters (name, debug_color, package_path, data_layer_type) fully documented including defaults and accepted values. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb pair ('Creates and saves') and names the exact resource ('UDataLayerAsset (World Partition data layer)'), so an agent knows precisely what gets produced. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as create_data_layer_instance or the various set_data_layer_* tools, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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. With siblings like create_data_layer_instance and get_data_layer_asset_info in the same domain, the absence of routing leaves the agent to infer whether this asset-level tool is the right choice.

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