Freeze Layer

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

Annotations carry only the title and no safety hints, so the description bears the full burden. It clearly discloses the freeze effects: invisible, unselectable, and faster regeneration. This is useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 compact sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and the behavioral effects are provided in a parenthetical that earns its place.

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 one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool does and its key behavioral effects. It lacks comparison to closely related layer state tools, but the operation itself is adequately specified.

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 100%, with the single 'name' parameter already described as 'Layer name to freeze'. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Freeze a layer') and adds distinctive behavioral detail: invisible, unselectable, faster regeneration. This clearly differentiates from siblings like layer_hide or layer_lock.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as layer_hide, layer_lock, or layer_thaw. The performance benefit hints at one use case, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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