set_layer_visibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only lists settable properties. It does not disclose whether changes are immediate or require saving, how solo interacts with visibility, or any side effects on other layers. More behavioral context is needed.

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 sentence that is efficiently front-loaded. However, it is overly terse and could include more contextual information without harming conciseness.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the interaction between properties (e.g., solo and visibility), the effect of opacity on the layer, or the result of the operation. For a modification tool with 5 parameters, more context is required.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter comments. The description merely repeats property names (visibility, solo, lock, opacity) without adding any new meaning, constraints, or examples beyond the schema.

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 states the action (set) and the resource (a layer) with specific properties (visibility, solo, lock, opacity). It distinguishes from sibling tools like rename_layer or set_active_layer by focusing on visibility-related modifications.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rename_layer, set_active_layer, or other layer property modifiers. The description does not mention prerequisites, order of operations, or when not to use it.

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