import_image_as_layer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the layer is created if it does not exist and notes the RGB mode preference. However, it does not mention error behavior (e.g., file not found), permissions required, or the fact that it modifies the sprite file. The disclosed behaviors are useful but incomplete.

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: a single sentence stating the purpose, two brief notes about utility and behavior, and a clean parameter list. It is front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value, though the 'Args' section could be slightly more compact if integrated with the schema.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, parameter semantics, and one behavioral note (layer creation). It lacks information about return values (if any), error handling, and what happens to existing layer content. For a simple tool, it is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section provides essential meaning. It explains each parameter's role, including defaults for x, y, and frame_index (starting at 1). The descriptions are clear and cover all parameters. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 action 'Import an image file into a layer' and specifies the resource (sprite layer). It differentiates from siblings like 'add_layer' (which adds an empty layer) by focusing on importing an existing image. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides context on when to use it ('bringing in reference images or composing pre-made parts') and notes a condition ('Works best when the sprite is in RGB color mode'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'add_layer' for empty layers. This is a minor gap.

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