create_tilemap_layer

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

With no annotations, the description partially discloses behavior: it sets the sprite grid, adds the layer, and notes tile index 0 is empty. However, it omits details on side effects, error conditions, or whether existing content is affected, limiting transparency.

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 concise: a one-line summary followed by a brief explanation and neatly formatted Args. Every sentence adds value, and the structure front-loads the core purpose.

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?

For a creation tool with 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter semantics. It lacks details on return values or constraints, but overall is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section explains each parameter's meaning (e.g., 'Aseprite file to modify', 'Tile width in pixels'), adding significant value beyond the schema's plain titles and types.

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 tool creates a tilemap layer with its own tileset, specifying the action and resource. It also explains the effect on the sprite grid and the empty tile convention, distinguishing it from other layer creation tools like add_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. While it mentions draw_on_tile as a companion, it lacks advice on when to choose this over other layer creation tools or prerequisites.

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