set_layer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose a key side effect—that the layer will be created if needed—which is useful. However, it does not mention whether objects are removed from their previous layer, what happens on failure, or any required permissions or return 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?

The description is a single compact sentence with no unnecessary words. The core action is front-loaded, and the important 'created if needed' behavior is included efficiently.

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 two-parameter mutation tool, the description covers the basic operation and the automatic layer creation edge case. However, with no annotations and no usage guidance, an agent gets minimal contextual support for choosing this tool among many similar layer-related siblings. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, so overall this is adequate but not rich.

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. It maps 'objects' to the names parameter and 'layer' to the layer parameter, but it does not clarify that 'names' is an array of object identifiers or describe how layer names are matched. The parameter names themselves are fairly self-explanatory, but the description adds only minimal semantic value.

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 names a specific action ('Put objects on a layer') and resource ('layer'), which clearly identifies what the tool does. The parenthetical 'created if needed' helps distinguish it from pure layer-creation tools like create_layer, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The description implies the tool is used for assigning objects to layers, but it does not explain when to choose set_layer over create_layer, set_visibility, or set_properties.

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