move_objects_to_new_layer

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

Annotations already flag the mutating and destructive nature (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true). The description adds the 'one step' combined-action context, but it does not disclose edge behaviors such as what happens if the layer already exists or whether objects are removed from their old layer beyond the obvious meaning of 'move'.

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?

Two short bilingual sentences with the key 'one step' value proposition front-loaded. There is no filler, and every element earns its place.

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 simple action tool, the description is adequate: it names the operation, the schema fully documents both parameters, and annotations cover the destructive profile. It does not mention return values or duplicate-layer behavior, but these are minor and do not prevent correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already well documented. The description only echoes 'given objects' and adds no extra semantics like name constraints, duplicate handling, or interaction between the layer and objects.

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 combined action: create a new layer and move specified objects into it. This is unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_layer or assign_to_layer, since it performs both operations in one step.

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 phrase 'one step' conveys the intended efficiency of combining layer creation with object reassignment, so the usage context is implied. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over create_layer followed by assign_to_layer, and it offers no exclusions or conditions.

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