update_layer

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the set of mutable properties but omits key behavior: that omitted/null parameters leave values unchanged, and that renaming is driven by a separate new_name parameter. No contradiction with 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that lists the operations efficiently, with zero filler and no repetition of the tool name.

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?

With an output schema and annotations present, the description need not explain returns or safety. However, for a 7-parameter mutation with low schema coverage, it leaves gaps: no statement that unspecified properties stay unchanged, no handling of nonexistent-layer errors, and no link between 'rename' and new_name.

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 only 29% (7 params, only color and linetype documented), so the description must compensate. It does partially by naming the operations that map to on, frozen, locked, linetype, and new_name, but it never ties 'rename' to new_name nor explains that the required 'name' identifies the target layer and null means no change.

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 gives a specific verb (Change) plus resource (layer) and enumerates every mutable property: color/linetype, on/off, freeze/thaw, lock/unlock, rename. This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from create_layer, delete_layer, list_layers, and set_current_layer without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated operations, and the sibling names (create_layer, delete_layer, list_layers) make the CRUD role obvious, but the description names no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions and no alternative tool.

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