layer

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

With readOnlyHint=false, the annotations already signal mutation; the description goes further by itemizing mutating operations such as create, set_current, set_properties, freeze, thaw, lock, and unlock. It does not disclose side effects or reversibility, but the operation list provides meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotation.

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 description is a compact, front-loaded summary followed by a bulleted operation list with minimal syntax. Every line adds information, and it avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 multi-operation layer tool with a sparse schema, the description covers the core call shape well: operation names and per-operation data. The output schema presumably handles return-value documentation, so the main remaining gap is the unexplained include_screenshot parameter and lack of explicit required-field notes. Overall it is adequate for an agent to invoke most operations correctly.

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 carry parameter meaning; it does so by listing valid operation strings and showing the expected data object shape for each operation (e.g., create data: {name, color?, linetype?}). However, it leaves include_screenshot completely undocumented and does not explicitly mark which fields within data are required.

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 'Layer creation and management' and then enumerates eight specific operations (list, create, set_current, set_properties, freeze, thaw, lock, unlock), making both the resource (layers) and the actions concrete. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like entity, block, or view.

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 operation list implies the tool is for any layer-management task, but the description never explicitly states when to choose it over a sibling tool or when not to use it. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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