set_active_layer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., changing the drawing context), error conditions, or what constitutes a valid layer string. The minimal description leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 concise sentence, which is efficient. However, it is overly minimal and lacks any additional structure or detail. While it earns its place for brevity, it misses opportunities to concisely add crucial context.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description still fails to provide complete context. It does not explain the return value, list possible layer values, or relate to sibling tools like 'get_layers'. The description feels incomplete and insufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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%, meaning the parameter 'layer' has no description. The tool description does not explain what the 'layer' parameter expects (e.g., layer name format, valid values). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's type definition.

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 'Set' and the resource 'active layer', directly indicating the tool's function. It implicitly distinguishes from 'get_layers' (which lists layers) by focusing on setting rather than retrieving. However, it lacks additional context to differentiate from other similar operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites like first using 'get_layers' to list available layers or any conditions under which setting the active layer is appropriate.

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