Set layer properties

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the selection-defaulting behavior, but says nothing about what a destructive change overwrites, how partial/invalid props are handled, or whether properties are merged or replaced — meaningful gaps for an untyped mutation.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and the property inventory, then the targeting rule. The category list is long but each item earns its place by defining the untyped `props` bag; no filler text.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a free-form props object and no output schema, the description covers the target selection and property scope but omits error/partial-application behavior and any permissions or preconditions. Adequate but with clear gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 0% and `props` is a free-form object with no documented keys, so the description must carry the load; it partly does by enumerating property categories (fills, strokes, auto layout, masks, text props), giving an agent a usable mental model. The `ids` parameter's semantics are also conveyed via the selection-defaulting sentence, but neither parameter's value format or constraints are specified.

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?

Specific verb ("Change") plus resource ("layers") with an enumerated list of what can be changed (geometry, fills, strokes, effects, etc.), which lets an agent distinguish it from read-oriented siblings like get_node or inspect_document. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with write siblings like create_node or batch, so it doesn't reach 5.

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 gives one clear targeting rule — "Acts on `ids`, or on the selection when none are given" — which is genuinely useful usage context. However it offers no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, e.g. when to reach for set_properties instead of create_node or batch, leaving usage largely implied.

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