manage_view_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that REMOVE deletes a layer, that SET ignores/clears fields when passed an empty string ('' clears it), that use_for_render controls whether a layer renders at all, and it summarizes the returned dict. It stops short of stating whether REMOVE is irreversible or requires the layer to be inactive, which matters for a destructive sub-action.

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?

It is front-loaded with the action semantics before the Args block, and each sentence adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess. The two-sentence conceptual preamble is slightly padded for a tool whose name already says 'view layer', but it earns its place by anchoring the SET_ACTIVE prerequisite.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the action semantics, per-parameter applicability, side effects of empty-string overrides, and return shape (with an output schema also present). The only substantive omissions are the destructiveness of REMOVE and the default-layer behavior when view_layer is omitted.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: every parameter is tied to the actions that consume it (new_name for RENAME only, the three overrides plus use_for_render for SET only, view_layer as the target). One gap remains — the schema defaults view_layer and new_name to null, and the description never says what null view_layer means (e.g., default to the active layer).

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 names a specific resource (view layers / separate render layers) and enumerates the concrete operations (LIST, ADD, REMOVE, RENAME, SET, SET_ACTIVE). It explains what a view layer is and how it differs from adjacent concepts by cross-referencing set_layer_collection, so an agent can distinguish this tool from siblings without opening any schema.

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?

It gives a concrete ordering rule — 'Pass, light group and AOV tools act on the active view layer: SET_ACTIVE first' — and routes collection configuration to set_layer_collection. What's missing is a when-not clause (e.g., when to use list_scenes or set_viewport_shading instead), but the operational guidance that is present is explicit and actionable.

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