krita_create_vector_layer

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'Reuse operation_id on retries' clarifies idempotency semantics, and 'no guaranteed undo grouping' warns about operation undo behavior. This is useful because destructiveHint is true and the description does not contradict any annotation.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and adds only the most relevant operational details. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 creation tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, grouping option, retry semantics, and undo caveat. It is reasonably complete, though it does not describe what the operation returns or any failure conditions, which would round out the picture.

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 clarifies operation_id by explaining retry behavior and parent_node_id via 'optionally inside a group,' but it does not elaborate on instance_id, document_id, or name, which rely on their titles being self-explanatory.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create a native editable vector layer in the active document, optionally inside a group.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools that create paint layers, group layers, or add shapes to existing vector layers.

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 this tool is appropriate by specifying 'vector layer' creation and the optional group placement, but it does not explicitly name alternatives such as krita_create_paint_layer or krita_add_vector_shape, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Usage context is clear but exclusion guidance is missing.

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