set_layer_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that omitted properties are left unchanged, that the active layer is the default target, and that the return is a status dict, but it omits permissions, reversibility/undo behavior, error handling, and validation details for invalid layers or blend modes.

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 front-loaded and compact, with a clear purpose sentence followed by a well-structured parameter list. Every line contributes useful calling information without redundant wording.

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 moderately complex mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, all parameters, defaults, omission semantics, and return type. It is sufficient for correct basic invocation, though it could further clarify error conditions or sibling alternatives.

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, and it largely does: it explains all six parameters, including opacity range 0-100, blend_mode meaning, visible as boolean, layer identification, and image_index default. It does not clarify precedence when both layer_name and layer_index are supplied, nor does it list valid blend mode 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Set properties on an existing layer." This is clear enough to distinguish a property mutation from creation, but it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings such as rename_layer, reorder_layer, or transform_layer.

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?

Usage is implied by "existing layer" and by noting that the layer defaults to the active layer. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of rename_layer, reorder_layer, or transform_layer, nor any when-not conditions.

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