rhino_layer_create

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

The readOnlyHint=false annotation signals mutation, and 'Create' is consistent with that, so there is no contradiction. But the description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the annotation: it does not disclose what happens on duplicate names (schema hints names are unique), whether the new layer becomes the current layer, or any other side effects on the document. For a state-changing tool with minimal annotation coverage, this is a thin disclosure.

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?

A single sentence with zero wasted words: verb first, then object, then the optional modifiers. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a straightforward creation tool.

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 is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, the description omits useful context such as duplicate-name behavior, whether the created layer becomes active, and the relationship to the similarly named rhino_cmd_layer_create. Adequate for a basic call, but with clear gaps for a robust agent.

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 schema documents most parameters well (name uniqueness, doc_id meaning, ColorRGBA channels with ranges and defaults), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds a small at-a-glance summary that color and visibility are optional knobs, but it adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specific verb ('Create') and resource ('a layer'), and mentions the key optional attributes (colour, visibility). This is clear and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from the near-duplicate sibling rhino_cmd_layer_create or other layer-management tools, so it misses the sibling-distinguishing criterion 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling list contains many layer-related tools (rhino_layer_set_color, rhino_layer_delete, rhino_layer_set_current, rhino_cmd_layer_create), an agent gets no help choosing among them. Context like 'use this when creating a new named layer; use rhino_layer_set_color to modify an existing one' is absent.

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