Apply layer combination

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

Annotations declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false; the description corroborates by explaining that applying a combination rewrites the state of ALL layers, which is the source of the destructive/wide-blast-radius behavior. It also documents the return shape, adding value beyond the annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect, followed by the discovery pointer and return shape. Every sentence carries information; nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the return fields (ok, layerCombination, activeLayerCombination), and annotations plus a 100%-covered schema handle safety and input. Only an explicit when-vs-alternatives statement is missing.

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% and the schema already documents the accepted forms (name, index, {index}, {name}, {guid}). The description adds only the discovery hint, which sits outside the parameter itself, so baseline 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?

Specific verb (makes active) plus resource (saved layer combination) and the concrete effect (sets visibility/lock/wireframe of all layers). This distinguishes it from the many layer/state siblings such as set_layer_states and create_layer_combinations.

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?

It gives a discovery pointer (list combinations with get_attributes {type: 'LayerCombination'}), which helps the agent find valid values. However, it never states when to prefer this over set_layer_states or other layer-state tools, so usage is only implied.

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