Krita Set Active Layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavior: recursive search by exact name. However, it does not mention what happens if the layer is not found, whether it replaces the current active layer, or any side effects. For a simple setter, this is moderate coverage, but it could state more about error handling or idempotency.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and adds a critical behavioral detail. There is no waste or redundancy.

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 low-complexity tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It lacks details about error conditions (e.g., layer not found) but that may be covered by the output schema. It is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly in most cases.

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?

The schema provides only a string type with no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description compensates fully by explaining that 'name' is the exact layer name and that the search is recursive. This gives the agent precise meaning for the parameter beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the verb ('make active'), the resource ('layer'), and the specific behavior ('searched recursively by exact name'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like krita_set_layer_props (which modifies properties) and krita_list_layers (which lists layers). An agent can understand the tool's function immediately.

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 implies when to use it (to set the active paint target) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It gives context about the search behavior but no exclusions or comparison with other layer-related tools. It's clear but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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