Unlock Layer

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

The description states that unlocking allows entity selection and modification, which is the key behavioral effect. However, with no annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint), it does not explicitly address safety (e.g., whether it is destructive, requires permissions, or is reversible). This is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential action and result concisely, perfectly sized for quick comprehension.

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 unlock operation with full schema coverage and an output schema available, the description is mostly complete. It could mention edge cases (e.g., layer already unlocked, layer not found), but these are minor omissions given the tool's simplicity.

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 coverage is 100% for the one parameter 'name', and its description in the schema ('Layer name to unlock') already conveys the meaning. The tool description does not add any new information about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'Unlock' and resource 'layer', and explains the consequence: 'to allow entity selection and modification.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like layer_lock (which does the opposite) and layer_modify (which changes 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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or contrast with other layer tools like layer_isolate. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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