Modify Layer

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

Annotations already signal that the tool mutates state but is not destructive, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds helpful context by specifying 'existing layer' and limiting the mutation to color, linetype, and/or lineweight, but it does not disclose behavior such as what happens if the layer does not exist or whether omitted properties remain unchanged.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary structure. Every word contributes to identifying the action, target, and affected properties.

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 property-update tool, the combination of a clear one-sentence description, a fully documented schema, safety annotations, and an output schema is largely sufficient for correct invocation. The only notable gap is edge-case behavior, such as null semantics or errors for nonexistent layers, which the current text leaves implicit.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so the baseline is already solid. The description adds useful meaning with 'and/or', clarifying that the caller may modify any subset of color, linetype, and lineweight in a single call, which is not explicitly stated in the field descriptions. It does not add units or ranges for lineweight, but that is a minor gap given schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('modify'), a targeted resource ('existing layer'), and the exact properties affected (color, linetype, lineweight). It is easily distinguished from sibling layer operations like layer_freeze, layer_lock, and layer_hide, which target different behaviors.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over related alternatives such as layer_set_current, layer_create, or entity_set_properties. No exclusions, prerequisites, or routing signals are provided, so usage context must be inferred entirely from the name and schema.

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