photoshop_create_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 falls short. It does not say whether the new layer becomes the active/selected layer, where it is inserted in the stack, what happens with no document open, or whether the operation is undoable, and it omits the blend_mode behavior entirely.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it is arguably too terse for a mutation tool with three undocumented parameters.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% parameter documentation, and an omitted parameter. The description does not supply enough context for an agent to call it confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only names two of the three parameters and ignores blend_mode. It adds no semantics such as the valid opacity range (0-100) or the accepted blend mode values, leaving the schema's bare 'number' and 'string' types unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Create a new art layer'), and 'art layer' is a meaningful Photoshop term that partially separates it from sibling layer-creation tools like photoshop_create_adjustment_layer and photoshop_add_text_layer. However, it never explicitly states that distinction, so the agent must infer it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus photoshop_create_adjustment_layer, photoshop_add_text_layer, or photoshop_duplicate_layer, nor any prerequisite such as an open document or an active selection. The agent gets no routing help at all.

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