import_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it only says a new layer is created. 'Allowed image file' hints at a restriction but never states which formats are accepted, what happens on rejection, or whether the import mutates existing layers.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action and target front-loaded and no padding. It is terse rather than bloated, though brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description is too thin — it omits the accepted formats, the naming behavior, and any failure conditions.

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% for three parameters. The description loosely maps 'image file' to path and 'current artwork session' to session_id, but says nothing about the optional name parameter, so the agent gains no real semantics beyond the schema's field names.

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?

States a specific verb (import) and resource (image file becoming a new layer) scoped to the current artwork session, so the agent can tell it apart from generic layer tools. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling layer_create, and 'allowed image file' leaves the accepted formats undefined.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this over layer_create, layer_duplicate, or transform_layer, and no mention of prerequisites such as an open session or supported file types. The agent must infer the selection criteria entirely.

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