set_layer_properties

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

The description adds the behavioral detail that only passed arguments are changed, but with no annotations, it omits side effects, authorization needs, rate limits, and error handling. It is somewhat transparent but leaves significant gaps.

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 very short (two sentences) but at the expense of completeness. It is concise but lacks necessary details, making it borderline under-specified.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention return behavior, valid value ranges, or constraints like enum options for blend_mode, which are critical for correct invocation.

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. It only states a generic purpose and does not explain individual parameters (name, opacity, blend_mode, etc.), leaving their meanings and valid values unclear.

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 the tool updates layer properties, specifying 'one or more' and 'only arguments passed are changed,' which distinguishes it from sibling layer manipulation tools (add, remove, rename, etc.).

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 when modifying layer properties but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use alternatives or exclude certain use cases (e.g., renaming should use rename_layer).

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