Ase Create Tilemap Layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the two main side effects (setting the sprite grid to the tile size and adding the layer) and explains the reserved tile 0 semantic. It does not mention error conditions or whether prior layers are affected, but the core mutation behavior is clearly conveyed.

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, each earning its place: the first states the operation and side effects, the second conveys a key invariant and directs to the companion drawing tool. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given there is an output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough for correct invocation: purpose, side effects, the reserved tile convention, and a pointer to the next tool. It could add caveats about existing layers or grid conflicts, but the essentials are all present.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It associates tile_width/tile_height with the grid tile size, layer_name with the added layer, and sprite_path via 'sets the sprite grid.' This adds meaning beyond the bare parameter names, though it does not give constraints, units, or explicit per-parameter explanations.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Create a tilemap layer with its own tileset') and the resource affected (the sprite's grid and layer stack). It implicitly distinguishes from plain layer creation (ase_add_layer) by emphasizing tilemap and tileset, so an agent can select this tool appropriately.

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 clear context: this tool both sets the grid and adds the layer, and it explains the special role of tile index 0. It also names ase_draw_on_tile as the intended next step for drawing real tiles. However, it does not explicitly contrast with ase_add_layer or state when not to use this tool.

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