nbc_layer

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It lists mutating operations (set_current, set_properties, freeze, thaw, lock, unlock) without noting side effects, persistence, reversibility, or destructive potential, and it never mentions include_screenshot or what it affects.

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 short and front-loaded with the resource, but it is under-specified rather than deliberately pruned. The dense slash-separated list is efficient yet forces the agent to infer each operation's meaning.

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 an eight-operation dispatcher with bare annotations, empty schema descriptions, and an undocumented data object, the description is far from complete: no per-operation contracts, no indication of what data each op expects, and no mention of the screenshot flag. The output schema may describe returns, but input semantics remain largely undocumented.

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 0% and the operation parameter has no enums, so the description is the only source of valid operation names; the list partially helps, but maps no operation to data requirements. The data and include_screenshot parameters are completely unexplained.

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 pins down the resource (layers) and enumerates eight concrete operations (list, create, set_current, set_properties, freeze, thaw, lock, unlock), going well beyond a bare restatement of the tool name. It is distinguishable from the nbc_* sibling tools by resource type, though it never defines what a layer is in this domain.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like nbc_entity or nbc_wall, and no conditions or exclusions for any of the eight operations. The dispatcher-style design would benefit from per-operation usage context, but none is given.

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