set_layer_properties

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutation, and the description usefully adds that unset properties are left untouched. It is silent on permissions, behavior when the layer or filename is invalid, and whether failing mid-update rolls back, which matters for a multi-field writer.

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?

Two short sentences with zero padding, and the primary action is front-loaded. It is efficient but verges on under-specification rather than dense information delivery.

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 7-parameter write tool with no output schema and only minimal annotations, the description is far too thin. An agent still cannot tell which properties are settable, what values blend_mode accepts, or what happens on partial failure, so key operational knowledge is missing.

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% across 7 parameters, and the description contributes no meaning for any of them. It never maps the verb 'properties' to the fields name, opacity, visible, editable, or blend_mode, nor explains that filename/layer are the addressing keys, leaving the agent to guess from bare names.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update one or more layer properties'), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it fails to distinguish itself from overlapping siblings like rename_layer and move_layer, which also mutate per-layer attributes, and it never clarifies which properties are in scope.

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 second sentence ('Only the arguments you pass are changed') describes partial-update semantics rather than when to choose this tool. There is no guidance on when to use it versus rename_layer, move_layer, or set_properties, nor any prerequisites such as the file needing to be open or the layer existing.

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