design_lock_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the core effect: layer lock state suppresses accidental edits and is reversible. It omits what locking actually blocks (selection, paint, transforms) and whether the state persists across sessions.

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?

One short sentence with the verb and rationale front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing to trim.

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 three-parameter state toggle with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient; only the scope of what locking prevents is left implicit. An agent could call it correctly from this plus the schema.

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 100% with per-parameter descriptions for locked, layerId, and sketchId, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

Names a specific verb pair (lock/unlock) and resource (design layer) plus the intent (prevent accidental edits). It reads clearly apart from neighbors like design_toggle_visibility or design_update_layer, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

The purpose statement implies when you'd call it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over design_update_layer or design_toggle_visibility, and no mention of preconditions (layer must exist, selection defaults).

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