layer

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint: false. The description lists mutating operations (create, freeze, lock) and their data inputs, but does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites, or failure modes. It adds some transparency beyond the annotation but lacks depth.

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 front-loaded with a one-line purpose, followed by a compact, well-organized list of operations. Every line adds value, no filler text, and the structure makes it easy to scan.

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 multiple operations and no output schema, the description covers the main operation semantics and data shapes. However, it does not describe return values, error conditions, or the expected behavior of operations like 'list' beyond 'List all layers with properties.' Some context is missing for a full understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by specifying the exact data structure for each operation (e.g., 'create — data: {name, color?, linetype?, lineweight?}'). This gives meaning to the 'operation' and 'data' parameters, though it does not explain other parameters like doc_id or lease_token.

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 opens with 'Layer creation and management' and then enumerates 7 specific operations (list, create, set_current, set_properties, freeze, thaw, lock, unlock). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like entity or block by focusing exclusively on layers.

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 operation list implies the tool is for layer-related tasks, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. The context is clear but not directly stated.

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