Create a layer

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the safety burden is partly carried. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by explaining the coordinate space ('page units relative to the parent frame, the page when there is none'), but says nothing about ordering/index effects, what happens on failure, or how props interact with type.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the type enumeration, and the coordinate rule is placed second where it belongs. The type list is long but each item is load-bearing; nothing is padded.

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 destructive 13-parameter creation tool with no output schema and zero schema documentation, the description leaves too much unknown: how 'type' selects valid props, what 'path' and 'index' do, and what a successful creation returns. It covers only the coordinate convention.

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?

13 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description only clarifies x/y semantics (implicitly the parent frame). Critical parameters such as type, props, path, index, parent, points, and closed are entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description, which is a major compensation 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?

States a specific verb ('Create') and enumerates the exact node types it can produce, which is more informative than the title's vague 'layer'. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings like set_properties or batch, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as batch, set_properties, or the run_command/command path. The only guidance offered is a coordinate-system note, which is a usage detail rather than a when-to-use rule.

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