rhino_create_layer

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

Annotations are sparse (all hints false), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what happens if the layer already exists, whether the new layer becomes current, if parent layers are auto-created, or any side effects. The nesting syntax is helpful but does not cover core behavioral expectations for a 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?

The description is one sentence plus an example, front-loading the purpose and the key syntax. It is appropriately short and has no waste.

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 the tool's simplicity and the existence of an output schema, some details may be inferred. However, the description omits critical context such as duplicate-name handling, whether parent layers are auto-created, and default behavior (e.g., color, current layer). For a creation tool with no annotation guidance, this is incomplete.

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 description only reiterates the name parameter's nesting syntax, which is already documented in the schema ('Layer name (use :: for nested...)'). It adds no value for the color or parent parameters, both of which are undefined beyond the schema, and schema description coverage is reported as 0%. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter explanation.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Create a new layer.' It is unambiguous about the action. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like rhino_set_layer (which modifies an existing layer) or rhino_delete_layer, though the verb alone largely disambiguates.

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 only the nesting syntax for the name parameter but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like 'use this to create a new layer, use rhino_set_layer to modify an existing one.' This gap leaves the agent to infer usage.

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