create_paint_layer

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a mutation (creating a layer) and mentions relative placement, but omits side effects, whether the layer becomes selected/active, what happens if reference_uid is omitted, and permission requirements.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but the wording is awkward and under-specified rather than crisp. Brevity here comes at the cost of clarity.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description leaves key parameters and behavioral effects undocumented. An agent would have to guess how name, texture_set, and position defaults interact.

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 for all four parameters. It vaguely touches position and reference_uid but never mentions name (required) or texture_set, and does not enumerate valid position values (top/above/below/inside).

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 concrete verb and resource ('Create a Paint Layer') and hints at placement relative to a reference. However, the placement phrasing 'at the top, or above, below or inside reference_uid' is grammatically garbled and does not distinguish this tool from siblings like create_fill_layer or create_group.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus create_fill_layer, create_group, or insert_smart_material. It also does not explain when reference_uid should be supplied versus omitted.

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