Create a labeled color swatch layer from hex values to display palettes in horizontal, vertical, or grid layouts.
Create a color swatch layer showing a palette of colors with labels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| colors | Yes | Array of hex color values | |
| labels | No | Optional labels for each color | |
| layout | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool creates a layer, but does not explain side effects, whether it modifies the active document or layer, permissions, defaults, or what happens to existing content.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The core action and artifact are stated immediately.
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, low schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits layout behavior, coordinate semantics, defaults, and any indication of what layer or result is produced.
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 40%, and the description mentions only colors and labels, which the schema already documents. It says nothing about x/y placement or how the layout enum is used, so it 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: creating a color swatch layer containing a palette with labels. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic layer tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with close alternatives like color-variant generators.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as design_generate_color_variants or design_add_solid. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'color swatch layer'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.