Drawing: Apply ISO Layer Set (bootstrap)

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint=false annotation by explicitly stating the operation is idempotent and that existing layers are not modified. This gives the agent a clear safety model without needing to infer behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences communicate the core action, the conformance criteria, and idempotency without any filler. The key behavioral fact about not modifying existing layers is placed prominently.

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 tool is simple with one optional, fully documented parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering non-destructiveness. The description's note on idempotency closes the main behavioral gap, making it complete for safe invocation.

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 already fully describes the single 'standard' parameter with its possible values (mech, pid, iso13567), and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'bootstrap' targeting 'a full ISO-conformant layer set' with 'correct colors and lineweights', making the tool's function clear and distinct from generic layer editing tools. It leaves no ambiguity about what operation is performed.

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 word 'bootstrap' implies initial drawing setup, and 'existing layers are not modified' explains a key limitation, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like template_apply_layers or layer_create. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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