Krita Set Layer Props

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

With no annotations available, the description itself discloses that the call mutates layer properties and, importantly, that unmentioned properties are left unchanged. It does not address failure behavior (e.g., missing layer name), undoability, or exactly how null values are treated beyond the 'only provided fields' statement.

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 two compact sentences with no filler, and the property list is front-loaded before the important partial-update qualification. Every clause earns its place.

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 6-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin: it omits how the layer is identified, what values are expected for opacity/blending_mode, and what occurs on missing prerequisites. An agent would need to inspect the schema and sibling tools further to call it safely.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the description only maps field categories; it calls the target field 'name' instead of clarifying that the required name is the lookup key and new_name is the renamed value. It also does not specify accepted opacity ranges or blending_mode vocabulary, so agents cannot infer valid 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 names a concrete operation ('Change') and enumerates the affected layer properties (visibility, lock, opacity, blending mode, name), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like krita_create_layer or krita_set_active_layer. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the verb-plus-resource scope is clear.

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?

It provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives or preconditions such as the target layer needing to exist. 'Only the provided fields are touched' describes partial-update semantics, but that is a behavioral guarantee rather than usage guidance.

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