Apply Layer Template

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

The annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining the mutation. It does so by stating it 'Creates all layers defined in the template with standard colors and lineweights.' It does not mention behavior around existing layers, duplicates, or overwriting, which prevents a 5, but the core side effect is clear and does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the available templates listed immediately and the effect stated in one sentence. Minor redundancy between 'standard layer set' and 'standard colors and lineweights' keeps it from being a flawless 5.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description is adequate: it identifies the template choices and the resulting layer creation behavior. It could be slightly more complete by noting what happens when layers already exist or by referencing the sibling template_list for checking template availability.

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% and the description simply repeats the template values already present in the schema ('architectural, mechanical, electrical, piping'). It adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 a specific verb ('Apply') and resource ('standard layer set from a predefined template'), then enumerates the exact templates available. This clearly distinguishes the tool from generic layer creation tools like layer_create or drawing_apply_iso_layers.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need an architectural, mechanical, electrical, or piping layer set. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as template_list or drawing_apply_iso_layers, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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