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

The description adds behavioral context by stating 'Saves immediately through the same checks the Switch workspace uses, so the app shows the same thing.' This goes beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true) by explaining persistence and consistency with the app. It also mentions the ability to reset layers, adding transparency about reversibility.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes key behavioral context without redundancy. Every sentence contributes value.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (two parameters, one nested array), the description covers all major operations and the save behavior. It doesn't explain every edge case, but the schema and annotations fill in the details. Some extra context about ownership or permission is implied by 'your own', but overall it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The description echoes the box format and reset behavior, but adds no new parameter-level information beyond what's in the schema. It does not compensate with extra syntax or usage details.

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 tool arranges a layer set by showing/hiding, moving/resizing, reordering, or resetting layers. It uses the specific verb 'arrange' and identifies the resource as 'your own layers project', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_layer_set or flatten_layer_set.

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 description gives clear context for when to use it: when you need to arrange layers in a project. It implies usage by stating 'Arrange your own layers project' and adds the nuance that it saves immediately. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient to differentiate from read-only or export tools.

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