layer_blend_mode

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a mutation operation ('설정합니다' - sets), which implies it changes layer properties, but doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens on invalid inputs, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two well-documented parameters and no complex behavioral nuances to explain.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after setting the blend mode (e.g., visual feedback, error conditions), doesn't mention dependencies or side effects, and provides no context about the broader layer system. Given the complexity of graphic editing operations, more guidance is needed.

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 100%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema - it doesn't explain what a 'layerId' refers to in context or provide examples of when to use specific blend modes. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('설정합니다' - sets) and resource ('레이어의 블렌드 모드' - layer's blend mode), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'layer_opacity' or 'layer_visibility' which also modify layer properties, leaving room for confusion about when to choose this specific tool.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for setting blend modes, there's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the layer must exist or be unlocked), nor any comparison to similar tools like 'layer_opacity' for other visual adjustments.

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