layer_update_state

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does it well: it discloses the side-effect (modifies layer table properties), the allowlist constraint, and that unsafe changes to the current layer are refused before mutation. It stops short of stating permissions or reversibility/undo behavior.

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?

Three short, labeled lines with the core action front-loaded followed by side-effects and disambiguation. No redundancy; every line contributes distinct information.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and annotations are minimal but the description covers safety and side-effects. A minor gap remains around what happens on partial failure or whether changes are undoable, but overall it is complete enough to call correctly.

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%, so every parameter is already documented with type and example (e.g. ACI 1-255, lineweight in 1/100 mm). The description's field list adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update allowlisted layer state') and enumerates the mutable properties (on/off, frozen, locked, color, linetype, lineweight). This clearly distinguishes it from layer_create, layer_set_current, and object_set_properties.

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 disambiguation line explicitly says when to use it: to change layer visibility or styling across all entities on that layer. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' or a named alternative (e.g. layer_set_current for switching the active layer), so it falls short of a 5.

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