create3DLayer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints that 3D transforms are 'pre-configured' but does not disclose defaults, which composition the layer is added to, whether a comp must be active, or what happens on size/color conflicts. For a 12-parameter creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a substantial 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?

A single efficient sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing behavioral and usage detail noted elsewhere.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits the target composition context, defaults for 3D transforms, and how it relates to the near-identical sibling creators, leaving an agent without enough to call it 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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the layerType enum and conditional usage of text/color. The description's type list merely restates the enum, adding no syntax or interaction detail beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Create) and resource (3D layer), and enumerates the creatable types (solid, text, null, shape). However, it does not distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like createSolidLayer, createTextLayer, and createNullObject, which appear to create the same layer types without the 3D transform prefix.

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 the sibling creators (createTextLayer, createSolidLayer, createNullObject) or versus set3DLayerTransform. The agent is left to infer that this is the 3D-enabled variant, but nothing states prerequisites or the conditions that select it.

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