set_collision_layer_name

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Assign' without explaining whether the name overwrites, persists, or if the layer must already exist. Safety implications (e.g., overwriting an existing name) are not mentioned.

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?

A single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate but lacks context on whether the layer must pre-exist or is created if missing. Missing preconditions reduce completeness.

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%, with both parameters already documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—only reinforcing that the name is human-readable. Baseline is 3 per rules for high coverage.

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 'Assign a human-readable name to a collision layer (1-32)' uses a specific verb 'Assign' and resource 'collision layer', clearly stating the action and scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_collision_layers (which retrieves) or set_physics_layers (which sets physics layers).

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 description implies usage for labeling collision layers but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_collision_layers, set_physics_layers). No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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