layer_visibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool sets visibility but doesn't explain if this is a reversible action, requires specific permissions, affects other properties, or has side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the purpose.

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 the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like reversibility or permissions, nor does it hint at the return value. For a tool that modifies state, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 100% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions: 'layerId' as '레이어 ID' and 'visible' as '표시 여부'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format details or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents the parameters.

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 tool's purpose: '레이어의 표시/숨김 상태를 설정합니다' (Sets the visibility state of a layer). It specifies the verb '설정합니다' (sets) and the resource '레이어' (layer), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'layer_list' or 'layer_select', which might also involve layer properties but serve different purposes.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing layer, or compare it to related tools like 'layer_list' (which might list visibility) or 'layer_opacity' (which controls transparency). Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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