set_layer_opacity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the effect ('set...opacity') and the parameter range, but fails to describe side effects (e.g., whether changes are saved immediately, what happens if the layer doesn't exist, or if the operation is reversible). This is insufficient for making informed invocation decisions.

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 very concise, with a one-sentence summary followed by a clear parameter list. Each sentence is necessary and adds value. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate context for basic use. However, it lacks information on error handling, return values, and typical usage patterns. For a simple setter, this is acceptable but not outstanding.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions for properties (0% coverage), so the description's 'Args' section adds essential clarification: it explains what each parameter represents ('Name of the Aseprite file to modify', etc.). However, it does not provide additional details like format constraints or behavioral implications beyond the basic type.

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 action: 'Set layer opacity by name (0-255).' It specifies the verb 'set', the resource 'layer opacity', and the valid range. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_cel_opacity (which targets cel-level opacity) and set_layer_blend_mode or set_layer_visibility.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_cel_opacity or set_layer_blend_mode. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate or inappropriate.

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