add_gp_layer

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects like whether the new layer becomes active, how duplicate names are handled, or whether the operation is idempotent or fails.

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 clear sentence with no filler or irrelevant detail. The key information is front-loaded and easily parsed.

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?

Despite the tool's low complexity, the absence of any parameter documentation, annotations, or operational notes leaves significant gaps. An agent does not know how to reference the object, whether the layer name must be unique, or what happens under edge cases. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for missing invocation context.

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 explain the 'object' or 'name' parameters beyond what their names suggest. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but no meaning is added for how objects are identified or what constraints apply to the layer name.

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 'Add a layer to a grease pencil object' uses a specific verb and resource, making the core action clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like set_gp_layer_property, but the action of adding versus setting properties is inherently distinguishable.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor about prerequisites such as the object already being a grease pencil object. The description only states the action without any usage context.

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