aseprite_set_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says what can be changed but not what happens when the layer is missing, whether changes require the document to be open/active, whether the operation is reversible, or that opacity maps to a 0-255 range. For a mutation tool this is thin.

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 names the resource and enumerates the four modifiable properties with zero filler.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the schema covers parameter semantics well, but the description omits behavioral caveats (error cases, at-least-one-property requirement, blend mode value set) that an agent needs before invoking.

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 schema already documents all six parameters (including the document-resolution rules). The description merely restates the same attribute list and adds no syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

Clear verb ("Change") and resource ("layer") plus the specific mutable attributes (opacity, visibility, blend mode, name). An agent can distinguish this from add_layer, remove_layer, and merge_layer_down by the field list, though no sibling is named 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?

Usage is only implied: "set"/"change a layer's" plus the required `name` conveys that this modifies an existing layer rather than creating one. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion against add_layer/merge_layer_down, and no note that at least one property should be supplied.

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