layer_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful traits: the new layer is transparent, width/height fall back to canvas dimensions, and it returns a persistent tattoo-based layer_id. It omits whether the layer becomes active, where it is inserted in the stack, and whether the operation is undoable.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the two most useful facts. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padded.

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 the return value need not be detailed. However, for a creation tool with no annotations and a required undocumented session_id, the description should say more about session/context requirements and the resulting layer's place in the document.

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% across 4 params, so the description must compensate. It does explain the nullable width/height defaults, which adds real meaning beyond the schema, but it says nothing about the required session_id or the 'name' default of 'Layer'.

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 transparent layer'), which clearly separates it from siblings like layer_delete, layer_update and layer_reorder. It stops short of explicitly disambiguating from text_create, which also produces a layer, so it is clear but not perfectly sibling-differentiated.

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 tool versus alternatives such as text_create, nor any prerequisites (e.g. an open session/document). The only contextual statement is about default sizing, which is parameter behavior rather than usage guidance.

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