design_set_lockup_variant

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Switch ... between' usefully implies replacement of the current variant (not creation), but it says nothing about whether the change is reversible, what happens to dependent sub-layers, or any preconditions on the target layer.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the variant list is compact. Nothing is wasted or padded.

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 two-parameter setter with no output schema, the description covers what changes and to which states. It stops short of the preconditions and side effects an agent would need to call it confidently on an arbitrary layer.

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 50%: layerId is documented in the schema, and the variant enum is fully specified there too. The description restates the four variant values but adds no meaning about layerId requirements (e.g., must be a lockup layer) or about how variants map to layer structure.

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 ('Switch') and a specific resource ('lockup layer'), then enumerates the exact target variants. It is clearly a mutation of an existing lockup, distinct from design_create_lockup, though it never references that sibling by name.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when an existing lockup layer needs a different arrangement. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention that the layer must already be a lockup layer, and no pointer to design_create_lockup for the create case.

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