Edit layers

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

The description is consistent with annotations (destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent) since it advertises delete as one of the actions, but it does not isolate which actions are destructive, whether deleting a layer destroys contained figures, or whether the operation is undoable via history_undo. With annotations already declaring the safety profile the bar is lower, so the added 'multi-action dispatcher' framing earns a middling score.

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 action enumeration is front-loaded and each item earns its place by mapping to a real enum value. The closing sentence 'Give the action and the fields it needs' is redundant filler given the required action parameter.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation set but leaves material gaps: what delete does to contained figures, whether operations are recoverable, and what the response reports. Cross-referencing history_undo for reversal would have closed the largest gap.

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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter already documents the action it applies to, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing beyond 'give the action and the fields it needs' — no constraint such as reorder requiring the complete layer id list, or assign requiring both uids and layerId.

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 (change/edit) plus resource (project layers) and enumerates every supported operation — create, rename, delete, reorder, assign, visible, lock — which maps one-to-one onto the action enum. An agent can immediately distinguish this mutation tool from the read-only sibling layer_list without opening either schema.

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 action list implies when each mode applies, and 'Give the action and the fields it needs' tells the agent how to invoke it. But there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as an open project (only inferable from the project parameter description), and no hand-off to siblings like layer_list or history_undo.

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