update_annotation_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the parameters but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether updates are destructive, permission requirements, or what happens on execution. The 'dry_run' parameter hints at a preview, but the behavior of the actual update is not explained.

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 extremely concise, using only four lines for parameters and a clear one-line purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose without any fluff.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, the tool is a mutation with no annotations, so more behavioral context (e.g., 'This modifies the layer in place') would improve completeness. For a simple update, it is minimally adequate but leaves gaps.

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?

The description adds meaning for each parameter beyond the schema's property names, explaining 'New name for the layer' and 'New description'. However, it is essentially a paraphrase of the schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the description is necessary but minimal; it could add constraints (e.g., length limits) or formatting details.

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 'Update an existing annotation layer' which is a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_annotation_layer' or 'delete_annotation_layer', but the verb 'update' is distinct enough among the list of siblings.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites or conditions, such as that the layer must exist or that 'create_annotation_layer' should be used for new layers.

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