layer_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior: dimension defaults fall back to canvas size, opacity is on a 0..100 scale, blend_mode accepts documented LayerMode names, and the returned layer_id is persistent. However it omits the layer's insertion position in the stack, session requirements, and failure behavior for a mutation tool.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then defaults, then accepted values, then return semantics. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

With no annotations and a mutation tool, the description should do more: it never clarifies where the new layer is placed, what the required session_id implies, or what 'visible' controls. The output schema covers the return type, so mentioning layer_id is a minor bonus rather than a necessity.

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; it documents width/height defaults, the opacity range, and blend_mode values. It leaves 'name', 'visible', and the required 'session_id' entirely unexplained, so roughly half of the seven parameters remain opaque.

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+resource ('Create a transparent layer') and adds the distinguishing scope that the result is a new persistent layer with its own layer_id. An agent can separate this from layer_duplicate, shape_create, and text_create without opening any schema.

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 never says when to use this versus siblings like layer_duplicate or shape_create, nor does it state prerequisites beyond the implicit session. Usage is only inferable from the tool name and the 'create a layer' phrasing.

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