Create a new SketchUp layer (tag) by name to organize model elements, returning JSON with its ID, name, and visibility.
Create a new layer (tag) with the given name.
Returns: JSON {id, name, visible}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name for the new layer |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool creates a layer and returns {id, name, visible}, which covers mutability and output. However, it does not disclose any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or constraints beyond the schema (minLength). For a simple creation tool, this is adequate but minimal.
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 extremely concise—two sentences: one for purpose and one for return value. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence adds value.
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 tool's single parameter and the presence of an output schema (which the description explicitly echoes), the description is complete. It covers purpose, input, and output. No critical information is missing for an agent to use this tool correctly.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'name', which already has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema for this parameter (just 'with the given name'). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'new layer (tag)' with a required name parameter. It distinguishes from sibling list_layers which reads layers, and other tools that modify components. The return format is also specified.
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 implies usage for creating a layer, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_layers or other creation tools. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided, but the simplicity of the operation mitigates the need for extensive guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.