set_current_layer_submaster

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It only states it sets a value but does not disclose side effects, permissions required, or what happens on failure. The output schema exists but is not referenced.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded. However, it is too terse and lacks necessary detail, sacrificing clarity for brevity. Every word is used but doesn't earn its place fully.

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?

Despite having an output schema and only 2 parameters, the description fails to provide complete context: no explanation of what 'value' represents, no example, no mention of return value. The presence of output schema is not leveraged.

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 0%, so description must clarify parameters. It mentions 'deck A or B' but does not specify allowed values (schema has no enum). The 'value' parameter is completely unexplained (range, meaning). Agent cannot infer valid inputs from description alone.

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?

Description clearly states verb (Set) and resource (value for current layer on deck A or B). However, it does not distinguish from similar sibling tool 'set_layer_submaster', which might set a submaster for a specified layer vs current layer. The term 'value' is ambiguous (could be brightness, level, etc.).

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There are many set_* tools without context on prerequisites or conditions. For example, it does not mention that a 'current layer' must be selected first.

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