add_gp_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the action and target, without revealing behavior on duplicate names, invalid object type, whether the layer becomes active, or whether the object is mutated in place.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence (9 words) with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of behavioral and parameter detail.

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?

Although the tool is simple (2 required string params) and an output schema exists, the description is thin given 0% schema coverage and no annotations. It lacks preconditions, duplicate-name behavior, and usage context, leaving the agent to infer the rest.

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%, and the description does not compensate. 'object' and 'name' are never explained beyond weak inference that 'object' is the grease pencil object and 'name' is the new layer's name. This is minimal added meaning over the raw schema.

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 the action clearly: 'Add a layer to a grease pencil object,' with a specific verb ('add') and resource ('layer' to a target 'grease pencil object'). It is conceptually distinct from related GP siblings, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from alternatives like set_gp_layer_property or create_gp_stroke.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many GP-related siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the grease pencil object needing to exist or whether layer names must be unique. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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