set_layer_mask

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that backgrounds can be discovered via get_capabilities, but does not explain the mutating effects, what happens to existing mask data, whether removal is destructive, or any permission or reversibility concerns.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The get_capabilities reference is useful, though the overall brevity leaves important gaps that are captured under other dimensions.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, three undocumented parameters, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too sparse. The output schema covers return values, but the description should do more to explain parameter meaning and side effects.

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 explain the three parameters. It only indirectly clarifies that background values come from get_capabilities; it says nothing about what uid identifies or how enabled controls add/update/remove behavior.

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 states a specific verb and resource: adding, updating, or removing a layer mask. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related mask tools such as set_geometry_mask or apply_smart_mask.

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 lists the operations but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_geometry_mask or apply_smart_mask. It also provides no prerequisites or conditions for choosing add/update versus remove.

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