assign_layer

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose important behavioral traits like what happens if the layer does not exist, whether the operation is reversible (beyond undo), or any side effects. 'Participates in undo' is useful but insufficient.

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 and front-loaded, with the core action in the first sentence and an additional behavioral hint in the second. However, it may be too concise, sacrificing completeness.

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 three required parameters and no schema descriptions, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly. It omits return values, error scenarios, and typical use case context. An output schema exists but is not described.

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 0% description coverage and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. It does not explain that 'layer' expects a name, what 'kind' is used for, or the role of 'uuid'. The agent must infer from the parameter names alone.

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 (assign an element to a layer by name) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_layer or set_layer_visibility. It also hints at mutability with 'participates in undo'. However, it could be more specific about what 'element' refers to.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as move_element or set_attributes. The description does not mention prerequisites, constraints, or when not to use it.

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