set_entity_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one meaningful precondition ('existing' layer), but says nothing about what happens if the layer does not exist, whether the handle must reference a valid entity, permissions, or reversibility for what is clearly a mutation.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though there is little content to be concise about.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves too much to inference. An agent cannot confirm handle format, layer-existence failure behavior, or the result of the operation.

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 for both parameters. It implies the second parameter is a layer name that must pre-exist, but never explains that 'handle' is a hexadecimal entity identifier (the schema's pattern) or how to obtain one.

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 ('change') and resource ('a model-space entity') plus the target ('an existing drawing layer'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like move_entity or delete_entity, but the purpose itself is clear.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of move_entity or other entity-mutating siblings. The only usable cue is the implicit precondition that the target layer must already exist, which is contextually useful but not framed as guidance.

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