Create layer combinations

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

Annotations already declare non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: the default captures the current state, overrides apply in order, the operation runs in one undo step, the return shape is given in detail, and partial failures do not stop other items. This is rich transparency for a complex batch mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then default behavior, an example, the activation alternative, undo behavior, return format, and localization note. Every sentence contributes distinct operational value with no 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 complex batch mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the default base state, ordering, undo, return shape, partial failure semantics, localization prerequisite, and the sibling activation tool. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is 50% and the top-level layerCombinations array has no schema description, so the tool description compensates by explaining the default state capture and by giving a concrete example of the layers override pattern. It adds meaningful workflow semantics beyond the schema, though it does not cover every nested parameter detail.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates layer combinations') and immediately defines what a layer combination is (saved sets of layer visibility/lock/wireframe/intersection states). It distinguishes the tool from its activation sibling by naming apply_layer_combination, so an agent can tell creation from application without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context: use apply_layer_combination to activate one, and look existing attributes up with get_attributes first because names are localized. It does not explicitly state when to create versus modify or when not to use this tool, but the routing guidance is solid.

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