set_gp_layer_property

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

The annotation idempotentHint=true suggests that repeated calls with the same arguments will have the same result, which the description does not contradict. The description adds the specific property names, which is useful context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't describe side effects like whether setting use_lights requires specific render engine or if setting thickness applies only to strokes. The idempotent annotation lowers the bar slightly, but the description could add more behavioral context.

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 that is concise and front-loaded with the action and resource. It lists the four supported properties, which is useful. However, it could be slightly more structured by including parameter details, but it is appropriately sized.

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?

Given that there is an output schema (though not provided in detail), the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a tool with 4 required parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter semantics, usage context, and any behavioral details like error conditions. The tool is relatively simple, but the description misses key information for an agent to use it correctly, especially since the schema is opaque.

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%, meaning the schema provides no meaning for parameters like object, layer, property, value. The description only lists example property names but does not explain the format of the value parameter (e.g., color as hex or RGB, thickness as number). For a tool with 0% coverage, the description must compensate, but it does not provide enough parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool sets a GP layer property and enumerates the specific properties (color, opacity, thickness, use_lights). This is a specific verb+resource (set + GP layer property) and distinguishes it from siblings like set_modifier_property or set_material_property. However, it doesn't explicitly name a sibling for contrast, but the resource is clear enough.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_property or other set_*_property tools. It doesn't mention requirements (e.g., the layer must exist) or when not to use it. Given the large sibling list, this is a significant gap.

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