update_shape_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'change' but does not disclose effects such as whether the layer must exist, if the operation is reversible, or if it triggers any side effects (e.g., DRC updates). The behavioral traits are largely opaque.

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 only one sentence (5 words), which is too terse. It lacks structured details and fails to provide necessary context for an AI agent. Conciseness should not sacrifice completeness.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the tool definition is incomplete. An agent cannot determine prerequisites, return values, or error conditions from this minimal description.

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 0%, so the description should compensate but does not. While parameter names 'shape_id' and 'layer_name' are self-explanatory, no details are given about allowed values, format, or whether layer_name must match a specific naming convention.

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 verb 'Change' and the resource 'layer of a shape'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like move_shape (positional change) or update_shape_width (dimensional change). However, it could be more specific about the context (e.g., PCB shapes).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_dimension_layer or update_text_layer. There is no mention of preconditions (e.g., shape existence) or exclusions.

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