pcb_set_layer_visibility

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it omits key traits: whether the change is session-only or persisted to the file, whether it affects plots/exports/DRC, and what happens on an invalid layer name. It does at least disclose the return shape (layer name plus visibility state), which is the one behavioral detail provided.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by Args and Returns blocks. The layer-name list is long but every entry is actionable given the missing schema enum; only minor trimming is possible.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the parameter documentation is complete, but with zero annotation coverage the description leaves persistence scope and error/failure behavior unspecified. Adequate to call correctly, not complete for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 0% and the schema has no enums, yet the description enumerates the accepted layer names by category (copper, overlay, mask, plane, mechanical, keep-out, drill) and explains that visible=True shows and False hides. This adds substantial meaning the schema does not provide.

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?

"Show or hide a specific PCB layer" names a concrete verb pair and a concrete resource, so the agent knows exactly what state changes. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as pcb_set_layer_color or pcb_get_layer_display, but the visibility focus is unambiguous.

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 statement of when to use this versus pcb_set_layer_color, pcb_get_layer_display, or pcb_set_text_visibility, and no prerequisites such as needing an open PCB document. Usage is only inferable from the purpose line.

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