Create primitive shape

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only that attributes can be set atomically in the same call; it says nothing about where the layer lands, whether it becomes selected, or error behavior, so it is marginally better than the annotations alone.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and appends the optional attribute behavior and a concrete example. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Adequate for a creation tool but incomplete in ways an agent would care about: no output schema exists, yet the description never says what is returned (e.g. the new layer's id/name) that would be needed for follow-up calls like set_attributes or set_parent, nor which composition the layer is added to.

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 are already documented in the schema. The description's attribute-map example (generator.dimensions, position, material.materialColor) largely restates the schema's own example, adding little new semantics; baseline 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 (create) and resource (primitive shape layer) and enumerates valid primitive types, which distinguishes it reasonably from the generic cavalry_create_layer. It does not, however, explicitly route the agent between the two creation tools, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 phrase 'optionally set attributes in the same call' implies you'd use this instead of a create-then-set_attributes two-step, which is useful implied guidance. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for non-primitive layers, so it stays at 3.

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