add_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool modifies a file (destructive) but does not clarify what happens if the layer already exists, the file is locked, or any other behavioral traits. Missing return value and error behavior.

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 brief and to the point, with an Args section that lists parameters efficiently. No superfluous text; 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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides basic functionality but is incomplete. It lacks information on return value, prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), and error handling. Adequate for simple use but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is essential. It adds meaning for all three parameters: explains filename as file to modify, layer_name as new layer name, and group with default and path syntax. This compensates for the schema gaps.

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 'Add a new layer to the Aseprite file,' providing a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_frame, add_group, and duplicate_layer.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like duplicate_layer or rename_layer. Usage is implied but lacks when-not-to-use or when-to-prefer indications.

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