cavalry_create_layer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (create) and does not mention side effects such as scene modification, layer selection after creation, error handling for invalid layer types, or any prerequisites. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose: 'Create a new layer in the Cavalry scene.' The long list of layer types is directly useful and not redundant. No extraneous words or filler are present.

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 simple 2-parameter create operation without an output schema, the description covers the purpose and layer types adequately. However, it lacks behavioral details such as whether the new layer is selected, if the scene must be open, or what the function returns. With no annotations, these gaps prevent the description from being fully complete.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds significant value by listing common layer types (basicShape, textShape, null, etc.), which enriches the layerType parameter beyond the schema's few examples. This helps the agent select valid values without additional lookups.

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 the tool's function: 'Create a new layer in the Cavalry scene.' This uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like duplicate_layer and delete_layers. The enumeration of common layer types further clarifies the scope of creation.

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 implies the tool is for creating new layers, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like duplicate_layer. There are no exclusions or references to sibling tools for comparison. Usage is implied through the verb 'create' and the layer type list, but explicit guidance is absent.

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