Assign drawing entities to a named layer to control their visibility and properties. Specify entity IDs and a target layer name to organize geometry within a CAD document.
Assign entities to a layer by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity_ids | Yes | ||
| layer_name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state that this is a mutating operation, whether entities are removed from their previous layer, whether the named layer must pre-exist or is auto-created, or what happens on partial failure.
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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is appropriately sized, though it borders on under-specification rather than true economy.
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 two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally viable but leaves the key behavioral question (layer existence and entity reassignment side effects) unanswered.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. 'Entities' maps to entity_ids and 'layer by name' maps to layer_name, covering both parameters conceptually, but it adds no format, ID-shape, or validation detail beyond that loose mapping.
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 (assign) and resource (entities to a layer), making the effect unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like set_entity_property or set_entity_color, which also mutate entity attributes, so an agent must rely on the name alone to route correctly.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. whether the target layer must already exist, or that create_layer is the sibling for that), and no alternatives. The agent gets no routing help beyond the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.