aseprite_add_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails: it never says where the new layer lands by default (top of stack?), what happens on a name collision, whether it mutates the document, or that it needs an active/open document. Only the implied mutation from "Add" is conveyed.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. The second sentence is a domain tip rather than tool information, so it does not fully earn its place in a definition whose job is selection and invocation.

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?

A six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs more than one functional sentence. Placement semantics, document handling, and default behavior are left entirely to the schema, which is inadequate for a write operation.

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 coverage is 100% and all six parameters are self-documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameters and notably omits that above/below are mutually exclusive placement alternatives.

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 first sentence gives a clear verb+resource ("Add a layer") and the tool's role is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like aseprite_set_layer, aseprite_merge_layer_down, or aseprite_remove_layer, so an agent gets no help choosing among them.

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 pixel-art layering advice implies a usage context (organizing artwork into outline/base/shading/highlight layers), which is genuinely tool-adjacent. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing an open document), and no alternate-tool routing.

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