gimp_new_layer

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

Annotations already declare it a non-destructive write operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), lowering the bar. The description adds useful context on group creation, position origin, and parent placement, but omits prerequisites such as needing a target/open image (image_id defaults to null) and what happens to the current selection.

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 short, front-loaded clauses with no waste, and the create-vs-group distinction leads. Slightly fragmentary in style but every sentence contributes information.

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 12-parameter creation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description covers too little: no defaults, no return behavior, no defaults for width/height/opacity, and no indication of which image is targeted. It is not sufficient on its own to call the tool confidently.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage across 12 parameters, the description carries the full burden but only explains 4 of them (group, fill, position, parent_id). The remaining 8 (x, y, mode, name, width, height, opacity, image_id) are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving significant gaps.

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 and resource ('Crea una capa') and clarifies the group-vs-layer branch via group=True. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like gimp_add_layer_from_file or gimp_duplicate_layer, which an agent could easily confuse with this.

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 guidance on when to create a new layer versus adding from a file, duplicating, or setting an existing layer. The mention of group=True and parent_id implies usage but never states conditions or prerequisites (e.g., an open image).

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