krita_set_layer_properties

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

Annotations already declare destructive and idempotent hints, and the description adds critical behavioral context: no guaranteed undo transaction or atomic multi-property rollback, plus the instruction to reuse operation_id on retries. This tells the agent what to expect and how to behave on failure, going well beyond the annotations.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences; the first covers the entire operation scope and the second covers critical caveats. No filler or repetition of schema contents.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter-level descriptions, this description explains the settable properties, layer-type restrictions, and retry semantics. Missing are prerequisites (e.g., active document) and return-value details, but the operation_id pattern and Krita tool family context make it largely sufficient.

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 carry semantic weight. It explains the meaning and applicable layer types for name, visible, opacity, blending_mode, inherit_alpha, and alpha_locked, and ties operation_id to retry behavior. It does not elaborate on instance_id, document_id, or node_id, but these are common context identifiers in the sibling API.

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 ('Set') and resource ('paint/group/mask/file/vector-layer') with an explicit enumeration of properties (name, visibility, opacity, blend mode, alpha inheritance, alpha lock). The property list and layer-type qualifiers distinguish it from sibling setters like krita_set_file_layer or krita_set_transparency_mask.

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?

Provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives; does not mention sibling tools or conditions that would route an agent elsewhere. The property list implies a use case, but there is no direct guidance or exclusions.

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