design_create_group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that existing layers may be moved, but does not describe hierarchy mutation, reversibility, required permissions, defaults, or error behavior for a six-parameter 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the core operation is stated first.

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 six-parameter, unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description is materially incomplete. It omits parameter meanings, defaults, and key mutation side effects, leaving the agent with too little context to call it safely.

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 only 50%: clip, isolate, and layerIds are documented in the schema, while name, opacity, and blendMode are not. The description merely echoes the layerIds behavior and does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 and resource ('Create a group layer') and includes the optional layer move, so the operation is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from layer-creation siblings such as design_add_layer, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of design_add_layer or design_reorder_layers, and no prerequisites for layerIds. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'optionally moving existing layers into it.'

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