set_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it modifies the active layer, but does not disclose that this is a state-changing operation, potential side effects (e.g., changing which layer is edited), or error behavior if the layer doesn't exist (partially addressed by create_if_missing). Lacks explicit safety or mutation information.

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 extremely concise: a single sentence followed by a parameter list. No wasted words. The most important action is stated first. Ideal for quick parsing by an AI agent.

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 setter tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic operation. However, it lacks mention of side effects (e.g., changing active layer for subsequent operations) and does not address return values. It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides brief but clear descriptions for each parameter: filename specifies the file to modify, layer_name the layer to activate, and create_if_missing explains behavior when layer is absent. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare types and property names.

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 it sets the active layer by name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that modify layer properties (e.g., set_layer_opacity, set_layer_blend_mode) or manage layers (add_layer, delete_layer). The verb 'Set the active layer by name' is specific and unambiguous.

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 vs alternatives. For example, it does not mention that set_frame is for setting the active frame, or that set_layer is for activating a layer before editing. Missing explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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