set_layers

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses that the operation is runtime-only and lost on reload, which is critical for decision-making. No contradiction with 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 mostly concise, using two sentences effectively. However, there is some repetition ('runtime preview — lost on reload' appears twice) which slightly reduces efficiency. Still, it's front-loaded and readable.

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 tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context (runtime-only, need to ask). It doesn't explain the meaning of layers or the effect on the scene, but sibling tools like layer_details can fill that gap. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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%, so the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. It mentions 'on an object or camera' which maps to the target parameter but adds no new details beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool sets layers on objects or cameras and highlights the runtime-only nature, differentiating it from read tools like layer_details. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish between this and other set tools like set_material_property, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to ask the user first whether they want a runtime preview or persistent code change, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. This is a strong, actionable directive.

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