add_layer

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, establishing a non-destructive write. The description adds that properties are set at creation time, which is useful, but omits significant behavior such as the save default (writes back to the sprite file) and backend selection between live and batch modes.

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, tightly packed sentence with the core action and its main modifiers front-loaded. No filler, though packing four clauses leaves some ambiguity about ordering semantics.

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?

For a 23-parameter creation tool with no output schema and nested objects, the one-sentence description is thin. The important file-write semantics of save/backend and the group-parenting behavior are left entirely to the schema.

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 74% across 23 parameters, so the schema carries most documentation. The description adds only the layer-type and placement vocabulary already implied by the schema; it does not clarify ambiguous params like save, backend, or properties.

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?

States a specific verb (adds) and resource (layer), enumerating the creatable layer types and placement options. This clearly separates it from siblings like update_layer, delete_layer, and duplicate_layer, though it never names them explicitly.

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 on when to use add_layer versus alternatives (convert_layer, duplicate_layer, add_slice), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The placement options are described as capabilities, not as selection criteria.

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