create_soillayer

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint true, and the description adds no further behavioral context. It does not clarify what happens to existing soil layers (e.g., append, replace) or any side effects, leaving the destructive nature unexplained.

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 concise sentence that immediately establishes the action. While it is economical, it omits potentially valuable guidance; however, for a simple one-parameter tool, the brevity is acceptable.

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 description adequately covers the core action but misses essential context given the destructiveHint annotation. It does not explain what the 'destructive' aspect involves, nor does it mention any ordering or replacement behavior, leaving the tool partially under-specified for an 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description simply repeats the parameter name ('height') without adding units, constraints, or meaning. The schema only provides the type and title, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('soil layer') plus the key parameter ('height'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_material or create_structural_element. It states exactly what the tool does without ambiguity.

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, prerequisites, or regarding the destructive nature of the operation. The description only states the action and gives no context about suitable scenarios or exclusions.

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