Set Current Layer

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

Annotations already communicate that the operation mutates state but is not destructive. The description adds the useful detail that the effect targets only new entities, but it leaves the likely precondition that the layer must already exist implicit and gives no error 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word contributes to explaining the operation and its scope.

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 one-parameter tool this is nearly complete, and an output schema exists so return values do not need explanation. The gap is the unstated existence precondition: the agent is not told it should verify via layer_list or create the layer first, which could lead to a failed call.

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 input schema already fully documents the only parameter, 'name', as 'Layer name to set as current' (100% coverage). The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning or format guidance, so it meets the baseline without enhancing it.

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 clearly identifies the operation ('set') and the target resource ('active/current layer'), and scopes it to new entities. It is clear enough to be distinguished from layer_create, layer_modify, and layer_delete, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

'For new entities' provides a clear usage context: call this before creating entities when you want them placed on a specific layer. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention layer_list/layer_create, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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