Toggle layer visibility, lock status, or rename layers. Manage design elements by hiding, showing, locking, or renaming them.
Toggles visibility (hide/show), locks/unlocks selection, or renames a layer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Custom layer name | |
| locked | No | Lock layer from canvas selection | |
| layerId | Yes | Layer ID | |
| visible | No | Layer visibility |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly does not. It says 'toggles,' which implies flipping state, while the schema exposes explicit boolean setters (visible, locked) — that ambiguity about flip-vs-set is left unresolved, and there is no mention of permissions, reversibility, or whether unspecified fields are preserved.
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 front-loaded sentence that lists the operations in a natural reading order with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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 an unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description is thin. It never explains that only layerId is required and that the other three parameters act as optional partial updates, nor what happens when none of them are supplied — a meaningful gap for a state-setting tool.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does map its three operations onto the visible, locked, and name parameters, adding modest semantic framing, but contributes no format, default, or interaction details beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (layer state) and enumerates the three distinct operations it covers: visibility, lock state, and renaming. This clearly separates it from siblings like layer_reorder, layer_transform, or layer_delete, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.
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 layer_duplicate, layer_reorder, or layer_delete, and no prerequisites stated. The three operations are listed, but the agent must infer the calling context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.