create_tilemap_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: sets the sprite grid to tile size, adds a tilemap layer, and notes that tile index 0 is always empty. This provides valuable transparency for an AI agent. However, it does not mention error conditions or side effects (e.g., what happens if the layer name already exists).

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 concise, with two clear sentences plus an Args list. The key information is front-loaded. The Args list is somewhat redundant given the schema, but it does not waste much space. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description covers the tool's essential purpose and behavior. It references a sibling tool (draw_on_tile) for context. However, it does not discuss error conditions, valid ranges for tile dimensions, or the tool's interaction with the sprite file state. Still, it is fairly complete for a creation tool of moderate complexity.

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?

The description's Args section lists parameters but does not explain them beyond their names. However, the input schema provides titles for each parameter, and the description mentions that tile_width and tile_height set the sprite grid, adding some meaning. Schema coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in description), but the parameter names are self-explanatory. Overall, the description adds marginal value beyond schema titles.

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 tool's action: 'Create a tilemap layer with its own tileset.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings like add_layer (regular layer) and draw_on_tile (modifying existing tiles). The additional details about setting the sprite grid and tile index 0 being empty further clarify the tool's role.

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 implicitly suggests that this tool is for creating a tilemap layer and that draw_on_tile should be used for adding non-empty tiles. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like add_layer or add_group, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., sprite must be open) or situations where it should not be used.

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