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. It clearly indicates a creation action (non-destructive) and specifies the active scene requirement. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like replacing existing content with same name, or any permissions needed. Still, the core behavior is transparent.

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 sentence that packs the verb, resource, context (active Cavalry scene), and a comprehensive list of examples. Every word serves the purpose with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values, but since this is a creation tool with simple side effects (layer added), the return is likely a reference or success indicator. The 3 parameters are fully covered by the schema. The active scene context is mentioned. A brief note about return value or confirmation would improve completeness slightly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., types, examples). The schema itself is adequate, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('a new layer or procedural node in the active Cavalry scene') and lists example node types, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like cavalry_create_primitive. It clearly states both the action and the target context.

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 usage for creating various layer/node types in active scenes but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., when to use cavalry_create_primitive instead) or any prerequisites like an open scene. The list of examples gives some context, but siblings are not mentioned.

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