set_layer_opacity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether changes are immediate, require permissions, or affect other parameters. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it lacks necessary detail, so minimalism is not fully justified.

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 three undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain return values (output schema exists but not described) or provide enough context for correct invocation.

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%, and the description adds minimal meaning. It implies 'deck' is A or B but doesn't specify valid values for 'layer' or 'value'. The term 'value' is ambiguous without context that it refers to opacity.

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 'Set value for a specific layer on deck A or B' clearly indicates the action (set value) and the resource (a specific layer on deck A or B). The tool name includes 'opacity', so it's understood that the value is opacity, but the description does not explicitly state this, slightly reducing clarity.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not differentiate this tool from siblings like set_layer_blind or set_layer_solo, nor does it specify when to set opacity versus other layer properties.

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