set_layer_opacity

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

The description is purely declarative with no mention of side effects, reversibility, error conditions, or parameter constraints beyond the range. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, which it fails to meet.

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 with no redundant words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the main action and subject.

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 simple mutating tool with no annotations, the description is too sparse. While the output schema exists, the description does not provide context about when to use the tool, how to interpret the opacity range (e.g., 0 meaning fully transparent), or any potential side effects. The tool's simplicity does not excuse the lack of usage and parameter guidance.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'opacity' ranges from 0 to 100, but it gives no meaning to 'layer_id' other than what is visible in the schema (an integer). This is only partial compensation.

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 clearly states the action (Set), the target (layer opacity), and the valid range (0 to 100). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like set_layer_visibility or set_layer_mode, which target different properties.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions. The intended use is only implied by the name, not explicitly stated.

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