wp_create_data_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Create or reuse' hints at idempotent behavior and 'active editor world' scopes the operation, but the description does not disclose side effects such as asset saving, editor state changes, or consequences of the various boolean/state parameters. This is a meaningful transparency gap for a creation tool.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core action stated first and a concrete example that helps disambiguate usage. The KB pointer is useful and not excessive. It earns its length without being bloated.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no annotations, and no schema-level descriptions, this tool needs more contextual explanation to be called correctly. The output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, but the missing parameter semantics and behavioral side effects leave the definition incomplete for an agent.

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 must compensate, but it only indirectly touches on name, type, and asset_path through the example. The meanings of save, private, loaded_in_editor, initially_visible, and initial_runtime_state are left entirely to inference from their names and defaults.

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 (Create or reuse), resource (Data Layer asset and instance), and scope (active editor world). It is specific enough to distinguish this tool from siblings like wp_load_region, wp_unload_region, and hlod_assign_layer, which operate on different world-partition concepts.

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 implies use when creating or reusing Data Layers, and the example demonstrates invocation, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The KB reference provides context but no direct comparison to sibling tools.

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