create_group_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the key side effect that existing layers can optionally be moved into the new group, but it does not cover permission requirements, ordering effects, failure behavior for invalid layer names, or what happens to pre-existing group structures. Some valuable context, but far from complete.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It leads with the primary action and appends the optional behavior efficiently. Well-sized for a simple creation 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?

The tool is relatively simple, the input schema fully documents all three parameters, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the core action and optional move behavior adequately, though it omits some usage and edge-case context. Overall complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents name, map_name, and layer_names in full. The description only echoes the layer_names concept by mentioning 'moving existing layers into it,' adding no syntax, format, or default details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Create a group layer.' The added phrase 'optionally moving existing layers into it' clarifies the tool's scope, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as add_layer or move_layer. Clear purpose, but no named 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_layer or move_layer, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The optional layer_names behavior implies you can combine group creation with moving layers, but this is not framed as usage guidance. This is essentially implied-only context.

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