Manage Layers

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating the action list, such as which operations are destructive, what delete removes, or whether layer changes can be undone.

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 with no redundant or filler text. Every word contributes to summarizing the tool's operations.

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?

The schema fully documents parameters and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description is minimally adequate for invocation. However, it gives no guidance on choosing this multi-action tool over related siblings or on action-specific behavior, leaving a clear contextual gap.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including action-specific requirements like new_name for rename and above for add. The description adds no parameter syntax or action-to-parameter mapping beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 names the resource (layers) and enumerates specific operations, so the tool's purpose is immediately clear. However, it does not distinguish this management tool from sibling read/list or move-layer tools such as get_layers or move_to_layer, which the rubric requires for a 5.

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 lists available actions but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_layers, move_to_layer, or duplicate_layer_tree. Usage is only implied by the action list, and there are no exclusions or selection criteria.

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