set_layer_transparency

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about permissions required, whether transparency changes are persisted or need a save, or what happens with an unknown layer name; the only behavioral detail given (the 0/100 scale) is redundant with the schema.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every word earns its place. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, which slightly limits its utility.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents all three parameters. However, for a mutation tool with zero annotations, the description omits persistence/validation behavior an agent would want before invoking it.

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% – map_name default, layer_name format, and transparency range are all documented in the schema. The description restates the transparency scale rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('layer transparency'), and clarifies the value scale's direction (0 = opaque, 100 = fully transparent). It does not distinguish itself from near-sibling tools like set_layer_visibility or set_layer_scale_range, but the action is unambiguous on its own.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus related layer-property tools, nor any preconditions (e.g., which map is targeted, whether the layer must exist or be visible). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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