set_layer_visible

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never says this mutates persistent layer state, whether the change is undoable, what happens if the layer name does not exist, or whether hidden layers are merely excluded from previews or from all rendering.

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 well-formed sentence with no filler, and the action is front-loaded. It is arguably over-terse rather than wasteful, but nothing in it is redundant.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation needs the description to do far more work. As written, an agent lacks enough context to call it correctly against its near-identical sibling set_raster_layer_visible.

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 for both parameters, and it largely does not. It implies 'visible' is a boolean toggle but never clarifies that 'name' is the layer name (versus a handle or ID), nor does it note that both parameters are required or that names are case-sensitive.

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 ('Set') and resource ('layer') plus the target property ('visible'), which is clearly distinct from set_layer_locked or set_layer_color. However, it fails to distinguish itself from the very close sibling set_raster_layer_visible, and the phrase 'in previews and listings' is an unusual scope that may understate or misstate where visibility actually applies.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative set_raster_layer_visible or set_layer_locked. An agent must infer that this tool applies to vector layers rather than raster layers entirely from the name.

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