render.create_view_layer

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

The description adds only generic contextual hints: 'Risk: standard', 'maturity: L3', and 'requirements ... still apply'. It does not disclose what side effects occur when a view layer is created, whether existing view layers are modified, how revision checks work, or whether the operation requires a transaction. Annotations already contain the boolean safety hints, and the description's vague risk/maturity labels do not meaningfully clarify behavior.

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 short, but it is concise without being informative. The opening sentence restates the tool name, and the remaining boilerplate about risk, maturity, and requirements is generic. It is not an effective front-loaded summary; it simply forgoes useful content.

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 mutating Blender tool with 5 parameters and no read-only guarantee, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot tell what the tool does, what side effects it has, what inputs mean, or how to successfully invoke it. The output schema cannot compensate for the total lack of behavioral and semantic 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?

The description gives no information about any parameter. It does not explain that `name` is the new view layer's name or that `_expectedSceneRevision` is a concurrency guard, which are the most functionally important parameters beyond the boilerplate internal fields. With only 60% schema description coverage, the absence of parameter explanation is a serious gap.

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 only restates the tool name as `render.create_view_layer` and labels it as a PartMe Blender Harness command. It never states that the tool creates a view layer, what a view layer is, or what entity/resource is affected. This is tautological and is indistinguishable from a definition that simply repeats the title.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when one should create a view layer, when it should not be used, or how it relates to siblings like blender_render_configure, blender_render_configure_passes, or blender_render_inspect. The boilerplate note about argument checks and session policy applies to every command and offers no practical selection guidance.

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