origin_layer_add

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It clearly indicates the operation is a mutation (adds a layer) and explains the return index's importance due to the graph possibly already having layers. However, it does not mention potential failure modes, permissions, or side effects beyond the addition. The key behavioral insight about the index is valuable, but the description could be more thorough.

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 wasted words. The first sentence states the action and return value; the second provides rationale and context. It is well-structured and front-loads the essential information, though it could be slightly improved by adding parameter context.

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 tool is simple, but the description omits critical context such as what the 'graph' parameter represents, any preconditions (e.g., graph must exist), and error behavior. While the return-index explanation is useful, the description lacks sufficient guidance for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional assumptions.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on the 'graph' parameter. It only says 'to a graph,' which is vague and doesn't explain what format or identifier the string should take. Given the single parameter, the description should clarify how to specify the graph, but it fails to do so, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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 action: 'Add a layer (a panel) to a graph' and explicitly mentions the return value 'report which index it got.' The verb and resource are specific, and the description differentiates from siblings by focusing on layer addition, even if not naming alternatives. It is slightly less explicit than a 5 because it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description explains why the index return matters but does not mention any conditions, preconditions, or alternative tools. An agent receives no context about when to invoke this tool over other layer-related operations.

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