krita_create_group_layer

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

Despite readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true already signaling mutation, the description adds important details: it returns a handle, requires reusing operation_id for retries, and warns that undo grouping is not guaranteed. These go beyond the annotations and give agents actionable behavioral information.

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 concise sentences deliver the action, return value, and retry/undo caveat without redundancy. The most important placement detail is front-loaded, and every sentence carries distinct information.

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?

For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides the key non-obvious facts: parent placement, default, return handle, and idempotency/undo behavior. It omits explicit parameter descriptions for standard IDs and potential side effects, but annotations and tool-name context mitigate these gaps.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates for parent_node_id by explaining the explicit parent and document root default, and for operation_id by specifying retry reuse. It leaves instance_id and document_id unexplained, though these are standard context identifiers; name is self-explanatory. This is partial but meaningful compensation.

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 action ('Create a group'), a placement ('at the top of the explicit parent'), and a default ('document root by default'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling layer-creation tools like krita_create_paint_layer or krita_create_vector_layer by naming the 'group' resource.

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 its use when a group layer is needed and clarifies the parent context with a default. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the many sibling creation tools or provide exclusions, so usage guidance is mostly inferred rather than stated.

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