create_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose defaults and value domains for every parameter, which is genuinely useful for a mutation tool, but it says nothing about permissions, whether the layer becomes active/selected, error behavior when no image exists, or whether the action is undoable — notable gaps given that an undo tool exists alongside it.

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?

A single front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact parameter list and a Returns line; nothing is padded. The list format is appropriate for eight parameters, though a few entries only restate schema defaults rather than adding new meaning.

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 an eight-optional-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, every parameter, and the return shape, which is close to sufficient. What remains missing is precondition/error context (open image, image_index validity) and any note on side effects to the active layer or undo stack.

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%, yet the description documents all eight parameters with defaults, accepted values, and semantics — fill color options including CSS colors, opacity range 0-100, blend_mode examples, and the crucial meaning of position (-1 = top, 0 = bottom). This fully compensates for the barren schema.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Create and insert a new layer into an image') and the position parameter implies it produces an empty layer rather than importing one. It never names the nearest alternatives (import_layer, duplicate_layer), so an agent must infer the distinction from the sibling list alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'create a new layer' suggests this is the tool for adding an empty layer, and the defaults hint at the common case. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over import_layer or duplicate_layer, nor any prerequisite such as requiring an open image.

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