select_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 implies a state mutation (the active layer changes) but says nothing about side effects, error behavior for nonexistent layer names, or whether the prior selection is preserved anywhere. Only the basic action is disclosed.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, and the verb+object are front-loaded. It is as concise as a description can be, though brevity here borders on under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 one-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the core action. However, with no annotations it still omits what happens if the named layer does not exist and what the tool returns, leaving gaps for an agent handling errors.

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 100% and the single parameter 'name' is documented in the schema as 'Layer name to select as active'. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies for a schema that already does the work.

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 states a specific verb ('Sets') and resource ('active working layer in Aseprite'), which is unambiguous about what the call does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like set_layer_visibility or set_layer_opacity, but the phrase 'active working layer' is specific enough to distinguish it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions (e.g., the layer must already exist), and no mention of when-not to use it. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and siblings.

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