armorpaint_set_layer

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

All annotation hints are false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds object_mask scope and an opacity range that is already present in the schema. It does not state whether omitted parameters are left unchanged, how layer_id=-1 behaves, or what side effects editing a layer can have.

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 text is brief and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters. The second sentence adds some useful detail, yet the overall description is more sparse than appropriately concise.

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?

With nine parameters, no schema-level descriptions, and uninformative annotations, the description is seriously incomplete. It lacks behavior around optional fields, enum meanings, and how object_mask interacts with layer editing, so an agent cannot reliably invoke the tool with correct semantics.

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 for the nine parameters, but it only clarifies object_mask and repeats opacity's schema range. The meanings of blend, uv_type, angle, scale, visible, name, and layer_id remain unexplained, leaving the agent to guess at important values.

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?

The description opens with 'Edit a layer,' a clear verb-plus-resource statement. The object_mask and opacity details hint at the properties involved, though it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like set_layer_channels, layer_action, or clear_layer.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call this tool versus armorpaint_create_layer, armorpaint_fill_layer, armorpaint_layer_action, or armorpaint_set_layer_channels. The object_mask sentence explains a parameter effect but does not help an agent decide whether this tool is the right one for a task.

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