Create layer

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so safety is largely covered. The description adds the atomic create-plus-attribute behavior, which is real added value, but says nothing about what the call returns, whether attribute paths must already exist, or what happens on an unknown layer type.

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 sentence with the core action first and the optional capability second. The type examples earn their place by clarifying the accepted value space, and there is no padding.

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 a creation tool with no output schema, the description should say what comes back (e.g. the new layer id/handle) so the agent can chain follow-up calls like cavalry_set_parent or cavalry_set_attributes. That link is missing, though the required-parameter and attribute-map semantics are otherwise adequately covered.

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 all three parameters (name, type, attributes) are already documented in the schema, including the same type examples the description repeats. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Create a layer') and scopes it broadly with concrete type examples ('null', 'group', 'textShape', 'duplicator', 'colorMaterial', 'javaScript'), so an agent knows this is the generic layer factory. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling cavalry_create_primitive, which is a plausible alternative for a subset of these types.

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 clause 'optionally set attributes in the same call' implies a usage pattern (create and configure atomically rather than chaining cavalry_create_layer + cavalry_set_attributes), which is genuinely useful. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no routing against cavalry_create_primitive or cavalry_duplicate_layer.

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