Set Layer Properties

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

Annotations already indicate it is not read-only and not destructive. The description confirms mutation ('sets') and specifies it applies to the active layer. However, it does not detail behavior like what happens if no layer is active, or if multiple properties are set simultaneously, which would improve transparency.

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 a single sentence that is perfectly concise, front-loaded with the action and parameters, and contains no fluff. Every word 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (simple property setters), the combination of the description and rich schema covers the essentials. It lacks return value info (no output schema) and preconditions, but these are not critical for such a straightforward 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 coverage is 100% with all parameters described (opacity 0-100, blendMode enum, fillOpacity 0-100). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states it sets opacity, blend mode, and/or fill opacity on the active layer, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from previous separate tools, and the sibling 'ps_set_layer_style' likely deals with layer styles, so this tool's focus is unambiguous.

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 implies usage by consolidating three separate tools, indicating this is the unified tool for these properties. It does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like ps_set_layer_style, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent.

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