set_linetype

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

The description discloses two non-obvious behaviors: auto-loading missing linetypes and the conditional global linetype scale setting. However, it does not address what happens if the layer does not exist or whether existing entities on the layer are affected, leaving some side effects unclear.

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 sentences deliver the core action, valid options, and key behavioral caveat without any filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose, allowed values, and the special ltscale condition. Given the output schema exists, return values need no explanation. It would benefit from specifying layer existence handling, but the current text is sufficient for a basic setter 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by enumerating accepted linetype values and giving semantic meaning to CENTER. It also clarifies the ltscale parameter's conditional behavior, adding context beyond the schema's bare type definitions.

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 verb 'Assign' with resource 'a layer' and specifies valid linetype values. It also explains the meaning of CENTER, distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_layer and set_current_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?

While no explicit alternatives are named, the tool's specific function is unmistakable from the first sentence, and the list of linetypes plus the layer target makes its use case immediate. However, it lacks explicit when-not guidance relative to sibling tools.

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