set_layers

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that changes are browser-only, not saved to source, lost on reload, recorded in pending_changes (which becomes code edits), and reversible via revert_changes. That is exactly the persistence, side-effect and undo context an agent needs for a mutation.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the critical live-preview caveat front-loaded in a bracketed tag before the actual operation is stated.

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 6-param optional-only mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context (persistence, undo, scope). It does not clarify how mask relates to layer+enabled, but the schema descriptions carry that burden.

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%, so each parameter (mask, name, uuid, layer, target, enabled) is already documented. The description only echoes the 'object or camera' target scope and adds no syntax or interaction detail, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Set layers on an object or the camera'), which is clearly distinct from the read-only sibling layer_details. It does not explicitly name or route to a sibling, so it stops just short of a 5.

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 is implied by the [LIVE PREVIEW] framing and the pointer to pending_changes/revert_changes, which tells the agent this is a transient in-browser mutation. However, no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternative is offered (e.g., when to prefer editing source vs. this preview tool).

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