Crear capa o grupo

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 hints that pixel layers can be optionally filled and that solid/gradient layers cover the whole canvas, but says nothing about required state (an open/active document), default placement (above/below/anchor interaction), defaults for name/opacity/visible/blend, or failure modes for an 18-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 the verb first and zero filler; nothing is redundant. It is perhaps too terse for an 18-parameter tool, but as conciseness it is efficient and well-ordered.

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 an 18-parameter, zero-required, null-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool with only 56% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It never explains mode selection, parameter interaction, defaults, or the effect of placement parameters, leaving significant gaps for the calling agent.

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 56% across 18 parameters, so the schema documents roughly half (doc, fill, blend, color, anchor, parent, above/below, clipped) while several parameters (x, y, kind, name, label, opacity, visible, gradient object itself) carry no description. The description adds only marginal semantics – that fills are 'canvas-wide' and pixel layers 'optionally filled' – and does not compensate for the undocumented params.

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 (creates) plus the three distinct resources it can produce: pixel layer (optionally filled), group, and solid/gradient fill layer spanning the canvas. This is clear enough to distinguish from most siblings, though the group-creation mode overlaps with sibling ps_group, which the description does not acknowledge.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives such as ps_group for grouping existing layers, ps_fill for filling, or ps_add_shape for vector work. The 'kind' enum implies modes but the description never says which situations call for which mode.

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