Create a new layer in the active InDesign document, with options for name, visibility, locking, printability, and guide layer status.
Create a new layer in the active document
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Layer | |
| locked | No | ||
| visible | No | ||
| printable | No | ||
| guideLayer | No | ||
| document_id | No | Which open document to act on: a name (see document_listOpen) or a 0-based index. Defaults to the front document. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.1Does 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. 'Create' implies a mutation, but the description says nothing about side effects, whether the new layer is added above or below existing layers, what happens on failure, or whether the operation requires specific document permissions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 wasted words, which is structurally efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise given the tool's six parameters and mutation behavior. It meets minimum viability but does not earn higher marks.
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 tool has six parameters, 0 required, only 17% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations. The description mentions only the basic act of creation and says nothing about defaults (e.g., name defaults to 'Layer', visible defaults to true), document scope beyond 'active document', or return behavior. This is incomplete for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.
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 only 17% – only document_id is documented in the schema, while name, locked, visible, printable, and guideLayer have no descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage. An agent cannot learn the defaults or intended values of most parameters from either source.
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 distinguishes itself from siblings like layer_delete, layer_list, layer_reorder, and layer_setProperties by naming the create operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate its scope or describe what kind of layer is created, so it stops short of 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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as layer_list or layer_setProperties. The phrase 'in the active document' gives a vague context, but it doesn't tell the agent when creation is appropriate or what preconditions must hold. This is effectively no usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.