Unlock Layer

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

Annotations only provide the title, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavioral effect (unlocking enables selection/modification) but does not state side effects, prerequisites, or that it does not affect freeze/visibility state.

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?

One short sentence with the verb first and the purpose immediately after; no filler, repetition, or unnecessary explanation. Every word 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 one-parameter operation with an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose. It is slightly incomplete because it does not disambiguate from layer_thaw/layer_show or note any preconditions, but the low complexity makes this a minor gap.

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 documents the single 'name' parameter with 100% coverage ('Layer name to unlock'). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline score 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 states a specific action ('Unlock a layer') and its intended effect ('allow entity selection and modification'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like layer_lock by naming the opposite operation. It is more specific than a tautology.

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?

Usage context is implied: unlock is appropriate when a locked layer blocks entity selection/modification. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as layer_thaw or layer_show, which could also affect editability in some CAD workflows.

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