Set Layer Flags

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two critical behaviors: only explicitly passed fields are modified, and the response's flags reflect the post-update state. It does not clarify whether passing false disables a flag or whether the operation is truly a toggle, but the partial-update and response semantics are well communicated.

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 concise sentences each serve a clear purpose: what the tool does, how partial updates behave, and what the response contains. The key behavioral constraint is front-loaded before the response semantics. No wasted words.

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 12-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It explains the update model and response field but leaves most flag semantics undefined, so an agent cannot confidently know what each boolean controls or what values to pass for a desired outcome.

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 only 17%, so the description had to compensate for the 12 parameters, but it does not enumerate or explain them. It vaguely refers to 'visibility / render / lock flags' without mapping parameters like solo, view, xref, manager, animation, or generators to their effects. The partial-update rule is useful but not sufficient parameter-level guidance.

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 ('toggle') and a target ('layer's visibility / render / lock flags'), and distinguishes this from layer creation/assignment siblings by emphasizing a single-call flag update. However, 'toggle' contradicts the set-to-given-value semantics described later, and the listed flag categories omit many actual parameters like solo, view, xref, animation, and expressions.

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?

It implies when to use the tool: when you need to update layer flags in one call and preserve omitted flags. But there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer, such as create_layer or assign_to_layer.

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