armorpaint_select_layer

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

Annotations are all false, which is ambiguous, and the description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb itself – it does not say whether selection changes active application state, whether it requires an existing layer, or what side effects may occur. No contradiction with the annotations, but the 'select' action is underspecified.

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 clean, front-loaded sentence that states the operation and key constraint with zero filler.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the absence of parameter explanation (especially the -1 sentinel), selection semantics, and differentiation from set_layer leaves an agent under-informed. For a state-mutating tool in a domain with 40+ siblings, more context is needed for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially by explaining that layer_id is a 'stable ID', which signals that IDs are persistent and can be reused. However, it does not explain the special value -1, how to discover valid stable IDs, or the origin of these IDs (e.g., from list operations).

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Select') and resource ('layer') with the distinguishing detail 'by stable ID', which hints at how it differs from set_layer and create_layer. The main gap is the unstated relationship to armorpaint_set_layer, which likely selects the active layer too.

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 'by stable ID' phrase implies the intended use case, but no explicit guidance is given for when to choose this over select_object, select_material, or set_layer. No when-not-to-use or alternative conditions are stated, so an agent must infer the selection context from the name alone.

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