Hide, lock or fade a layer

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description adds the important behavioral detail that hidden layers are skipped by extraction. This helps an agent understand a non-obvious side effect. It does not contradict the destructive hint, though it could say more about the consequences of locking or changing opacity.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The core action is first, and the extra behavioral context is front-loaded and directly useful. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple setter tool, the description plus annotations cover the basics: what it does, that it can be destructive, and why hiding matters. However, with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, more detail about parameter behavior and interaction would make the tool fully self-contained for an agent.

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 only 25% (only nodeId is documented). The description merely lists 'opacity, visibility and lock' without explaining their semantics, interactions, or defaults. With low coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not meaningfully clarify the parameter meanings beyond their names.

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 exact operation: 'Sets opacity, visibility and lock.' The title reinforces the same intent with 'Hide, lock or fade a layer,' which makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious and distinguishes it from sibling setter tools like figma_set_fill or figma_set_stroke.

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?

The description gives one concrete use case: hiding layers so extraction skips them ('which is often the point'). However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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