layer_management

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely says 'manage' without mentioning side effects like deletion, visibility changes, or reordering impact. It doesn't state whether actions are destructive, require permissions, or what the return values look like. This is a severe gap for a tool with actions like delete_layer.

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 vague sentence that underspecifies the tool. For a tool with 7 parameters and 6 distinct actions, it should offer more structured detail. It's not concise; it's just incomplete.

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's complexity (multiple action types, nested layer_properties, no output schema), the description is far from complete. It doesn't enumerate actions, explain what each action does, or describe any output or error behavior. The description fails to provide a complete picture even with a rich schema.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't explain the relationship between action and required parameters, but the schema's per-field descriptions are sufficient.

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 says 'manage chart layers and groups,' which is vague and does not specify the actual operations (create, delete, move, reorder, visibility). It also mentions 'groups' but the schema has no group-related parameters or actions, making the purpose somewhat misleading. Sibling tools don't cover layers, so some differentiation exists, but the verb 'manage' is too generic.

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 vs alternatives. There are no usage scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The sibling tools include similar management operations, but the description doesn't distinguish when layer_management should be preferred.

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