add_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Add a new layer' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether the operation is idempotent, error conditions, or what happens on success. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'adding a layer' entails (e.g., default properties, position in layer stack), success/failure behavior, or return values. For a tool that modifies state, more context is needed.

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 both parameters (projectId and layerName). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain layer naming conventions, projectId format, or parameter interactions. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('Add') and resource ('a new layer to the project'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'create_project' or 'remove_layer', but the verb+resource combination is specific enough for basic understanding.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_project' or 'duplicate_frame', leaving the agent with no contextual usage information.

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