armorpaint_create_layer

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

Annotations carry almost no signal: all four hints are false, which is the default state, so readOnlyHint=false merely confirms this is a mutation. The description adds one key behavioral constraint — masks require a parent layer ID — but does not disclose what happens with an invalid parent, whether creation alters the current selection, or how it interacts with the undo stack.

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 sentences with no filler: the purpose is front-loaded, followed by the single most important constraint and the trickiest parameter mapping. Every sentence earns its place for a tool with 6 parameters and 4 entity kinds.

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?

The description covers purpose, the mask requirement, and UV semantics, and an output schema exists so return values need not be documented. But white and material_id semantics, plus failure behavior for invalid parent references, are missing — an agent could pass nonsensical defaults and only discover problems at runtime.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate; it fully explains the cryptic numeric uv_type enum (0=UV map, 1=triplanar, 2=projection) and partially clarifies kind and parent_id. However, 'white' (initial layer color?) and 'material_id' (binding the layer to a material?) remain undefined, so compensation is only partial.

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 ('Create') and enumerates the full resource range ('paint layer, material fill, mask, or group'), which maps 1:1 to the 'kind' enum. This cleanly separates it from sibling tools like armorpaint_create_material, armorpaint_fill_layer, and armorpaint_layer_action.

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 mask-parent constraint ('Masks require a parent layer ID') is a genuinely useful condition, but the description never says when to prefer this tool over the many alternatives, such as fill_layer, set_layer, or layer_action. Usage context is implied by the name and the create verb rather than explicitly stated.

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