set_layer_solo

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., whether solo is toggled or exclusive), permission requirements, or state changes. The description is too minimal 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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks sufficient detail. It is not wasteful, but could be expanded to add value without losing conciseness.

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 annotations and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete for a 3-parameter mutation tool. It does not explain return values or behavior, leaving gaps in understanding despite the presence of an output schema (not shown here).

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 the description must add meaning to parameters. It only notes 'deck A or B' for deck but does not clarify the integer range for layer or the effect of the enabled boolean (e.g., true enables solo, false disables). Parameter names are self-explanatory, but no additional semantics provided.

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 the action ('Set solo') and the resource ('for a specific layer on deck A or B'). It distinguishes from sibling tool 'set_current_layer_solo' by specifying deck and layer parameters, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 versus alternatives like 'set_current_layer_solo' or other set tools. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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