Assign To Layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that passing layer:null clears the assignment and that the layer must already exist. However, it does not mention whether a previous layer assignment is overwritten, what error occurs for an invalid target, or what the tool returns on success.

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 short sentences deliver the primary action, the clearing special case, and the key prerequisite. There is no filler or redundancy; every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with a rich schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: what the tool does, how to clear, and the layer-existence prerequisite. It omits minor behavior like return values and overwrite semantics, but these are not critical for correct invocation given the schema's completeness.

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 the schema already explains both parameters. The description adds a little context by naming object/tag/material targets and repeating the null-to-clear behavior, but that null behavior is already in the schema. The target parenthetical is also underinclusive relative to the schema's many supported kinds, so no bonus is warranted.

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 ('Place') and resource ('named layer'), and clarifies the accepted target types. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling layer/material tools like create_layer, get_object_layer, and assign_material because the action is explicitly 'assign target to a 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?

The description gives a clear use context: place a target on a named layer. It also provides a direct prerequisite — 'The layer must exist — call create_layer first if needed' — which helps the agent decide on a precondition action. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like assign_material, so it stops 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.