create_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'transparent RGBA' and 'top of an image', hinting at color mode and position, but does not disclose side effects such as whether the new layer becomes active, how dimensions default, or any image mode prerequisites. This is minimal and incomplete.

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 description is one sentence and starts with the action, making it concise. However, it is under-specified, repeating the basic idea conveyed by the tool name without adding sufficient detail. It is efficient but lacks depth.

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 five parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description needs to provide significant context. It only covers the basic action, omitting parameter semantics, behavioral effects, and usage scenarios. The output schema exists but does not compensate for the missing operational context.

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 by explaining parameters. It does not mention any of the five parameters (name, width, height, opacity, image_id), leaving their meaning and behavior entirely unexplained. The agent cannot infer the role of each parameter from the description.

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 clearly states the action (create), the resource (a layer), and the specifics (transparent RGBA, at the top of an image). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like duplicate_layer or rename_layer.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need a new transparent layer on top. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like duplicate_layer or move_layer. The context is clear but not explicit.

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