set_layer_blend_mode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action itself. It does not mention whether unsupported modes are rejected, whether previous blend mode states are overwritten, or what happens if the layer is not found. The phrase 'supported by Aseprite' hints at validation but does not explain side effects or failure behavior.

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 single focused sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the core action and resource immediately, which is appropriate for such a small tool.

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 tool with three required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too sparse to fully support correct invocation. An agent cannot determine valid mode strings, parameter behavior, or expected outcomes. It is minimally viable at best but leaves significant gaps.

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 clarify the three required parameters. It confirms that 'mode' refers to an Aseprite-supported blend mode, which adds some meaning, but it does not explain the accepted mode values or the roles of 'filename' and 'layer_name'. The parameter names are suggestive but not sufficient on their own.

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 uses a specific verb ('Set') and resource ('layer blend mode'), making the operation clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like set_layer, set_layer_visibility, and set_layer_opacity because it targets blend mode specifically. However, it does not expand on what blend modes are available, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_layer or set_layer_opacity. It also does not state prerequisites like requiring the sprite file to be loaded or the layer to exist. There is no context about exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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