photoshop_create_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers the side effect ('adds layer to history'), the precondition ('active document'), and the return value ('created layer name and context'). This is strong, though it does not delve into failure modes or what happens if no document is active.

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 compact and well-structured, with the core action front-loaded followed by crisp 'Use when', 'Do NOT use when', 'Returns', 'Preconditions', and 'Side effects' sections. Every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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 that there is no output schema and no annotations, this description provides a complete operational picture: what the tool creates, where, when to use it, what it requires, what it returns, and what side effects it has. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly in most scenarios.

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 100%, and the parameter descriptions already explain 'name' and 'document_id' thoroughly, including the document activation behavior. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new empty layer above the active layer,' which clearly states what the tool does and where the layer appears. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling photoshop_create_text_layer by naming it and stating the difference. No ambiguity remains about the tool's purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('when user needs a blank layer for painting, fills, or stacking content') and when not to use it ('adding text — use photoshop_create_text_layer'). This gives an agent direct routing guidance without needing to infer from context.

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