create_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that standard names receive default styles and clarifies color/style formats, but it does not state what happens if a layer name already exists, whether the new layer becomes active, or any side effects. For a state-changing operation, this is a meaningful gap.

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 two sentences with no filler or redundancy. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by compact parameter details that earn their place. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The output schema presumably covers return values, so that part is not missing. However, the description omits operational context such as line_width semantics, duplicate-name handling, and layer activation behavior. The standard-names default-style context adds useful value, but an agent still lacks important behavioral information.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It successfully explains line_color as [r,g,b] in 0..1 and draw_style as Solid/Dashed/Dotted/Dashdot, and it implies that certain 'name' values yield default styles. However, line_width is left completely undefined, and the name semantics beyond standard defaults are not detailed. The compensation is partial.

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 states a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a layer'), making the primary function unambiguous. It is naturally distinguished from sibling tools like set_layer or get_layers by the 'create' verb, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The meaning is clear and direct.

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 gives no guidance on when to use create_layer versus related tools like set_layer or set_visibility, and it mentions no exclusions or prerequisites. The standard-names hint is a naming suggestion but does not help an agent choose among siblings. Usage must be inferred from the tool name alone.

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