imgui_set_window_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does communicate the core effect (changing render order) and the semantics of higher/lower values. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is persistent across frames, whether it affects hit-testing/input order, or how it interacts with the existing z-order stack. For a simple setter with no annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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, zero waste. The description states the action and the value semantics immediately. Perfectly front-loaded and sized appropriately for a simple two-parameter setter.

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 simple setter with 2 fully-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential ground. However, given the existence of closely related siblings (imgui_bring_to_front, imgui_transform_draw_layer, imgui_window_control), a note about when to use this vs those would strengthen completeness. The tool is minimally complete but leaves the sibling-differentiation gap open.

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 100% — both 'layer' and 'window' already have descriptions in the schema. The layer description in the schema ('Layer value (higher = on top)') already conveys the meaning, and the window field is self-explanatory. The description adds minimal value beyond schema, but with full coverage, baseline 3 applies.

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 clear purpose: 'Set the render layer (z-order) of a window' with a specific verb (set) and resource (window render layer). It explains the meaning of the layer value in plain terms ('Higher layers render on top'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like imgui_bring_to_front or imgui_transform_draw_layer, but the intended semantic is clear enough for an agent to understand its function.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no context about when this tool is preferred over imgui_bring_to_front or imgui_window_control. The description implies usage (manipulating window z-order) but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison against the two-sibling tools that also affect layer/ordering behavior.

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