set-layer-parent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses the inheritance behavior (position/rotation/scale), and notes that parentLayer params are ignored when clearParent is true. This is good, though it doesn't mention failure modes or whether changes are permanent.

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?

Two sentences pack in the core action, usage modes, and key behavior without fluff. Every clause adds value, and it's front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

With 7 params and no required fields, the description provides context on how to use the tool (selecting layers) and the inheritance behavior. It covers the main scenarios but could mention edge cases like self-parenting or pre-existing parent relationships. Still, it's reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Input schema already describes all 7 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds the relationship between clearParent and other params, and clarifies selection order, but doesn't go beyond schema for each param individually. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the tool sets or clears a layer's parent, explicitly differentiating it from sibling tools like delete-layer or reorder-layer. The parent/child rig explanation adds specific domain context that disambiguates it from similar layer operations.

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?

Provides explicit instructions: select target layer and parent layer, or set clearParent to true to remove. It distinguishes between set and clear modes, though it doesn't discuss alternatives like changing parent vs. re-parenting, but that's adequately implicit.

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