rhino_set_layer

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

Annotations already convey that this is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description merely restates the action without adding behavioral context. It does not disclose whether the target layer must already exist or if it will be created automatically, nor does it mention the effect on object properties—information that is not covered by annotations.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and object. There is no redundancy or extraneous information, making it efficiently sized for a simple operation.

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 basic move-to-layer operation, the description is minimally adequate and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values. However, it lacks essential context about layer existence behavior and does not clarify how this differs from rhino_set_current_layer, which could lead to incorrect tool selection in an agent.

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 reported as 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter clarification. The tool description does not mention either parameter (guids or layer) or explain their expected format, meaning an agent receives no additional semantic guidance beyond the bare schema names. This is a significant gap for a two-parameter tool.

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 a specific action ('Move objects') and a resource ('layer'), making its purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling layer tools like rhino_set_current_layer or rhino_set_layer_visibility, but the verb alone sufficiently distinguishes moving objects to a layer from other layer operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_set_current_layer, rhino_set_layer_color, or rhino_set_layer_visibility. The description gives no context about typical use cases, prerequisites (e.g., layer existence), or when the sibling tools would be more appropriate.

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