layer_lock

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool sets lock status but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a destructive operation (likely not, but unspecified), permission requirements, side effects (e.g., if locking affects other tools), or error conditions. This leaves gaps for a mutation tool.

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 in Korean that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., what happens when a layer is locked), error handling, or return values. Sibling tools include other layer operations, but no context is provided to distinguish this one adequately.

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 clear parameter descriptions in Korean ('레이어 ID' for layerId, '잠금 여부' for locked). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining what a valid layerId looks like or the implications of the locked boolean. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 states the action ('설정합니다' - sets/configure) and resource ('레이어의 잠금 상태' - layer's lock status), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'lock status' entails (e.g., preventing editing, selection) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like layer_select or layer_visibility, which also control layer states.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing layer), exclusions, or compare to related tools like layer_select (which might interact with locked layers). Usage is implied only by the action described.

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