layer

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint:false, and the description adds the multi-operation structure and data shapes, signaling that most operations mutate layer state. However, it does not explain side effects of operations like set_current, freeze, or lock, nor does it mention persistence, permissions, or error behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded, opening with a clear purpose and then presenting a scannable list of operations and their data payloads. Every line carries useful information with no unnecessary padding.

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 seven-operation multiplexed tool, the description covers all operations and their data shapes, and an output schema exists to handle return values. It is slightly incomplete because it omits include_screenshot and does not elaborate on the behavioral consequences of each operation, but overall it is robust.

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 input schema provides only bare parameter names without descriptions or enums, but the description compensates by listing valid operation values and the expected data fields for each operation. It does not mention include_screenshot, but the core parameter semantics are well documented.

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 'Layer creation and management' and then enumerates seven concrete operations (list, create, set_current, set_properties, freeze, thaw, lock, unlock), making the tool's resource and supported actions unmistakable. This operation list distinguishes it from sibling tools such as entity, block, or view.

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 operations list implies that this tool is for layer-related tasks, but there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool over sibling tools or when not to use it. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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