Set Layer Property

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

The description adds value beyond the idempotentHint annotation by detailing supported properties and value constraints (e.g., opacity range 0.0-1.0). However, it does not disclose behavior on error, default values, or whether previous property states are overwritten.

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?

Two sentences with critical information front-loaded. No extraneous text, efficient and clear.

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 simple setter with no output schema, the description covers property semantics but lacks information on return values, error handling, and side effects. Given the idempotent annotation and straightforward nature, it's adequate but could be more complete.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates by listing valid property names and their expected value types (e.g., opacity as a float in [0,1], name as string). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema, though it could include more format examples.

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 sets a layer property and lists supported properties with types and ranges. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_layer_style and set_layer_visibility by specifying individual property updates, but does not explicitly differentiate its use case.

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. The description does not provide context for selection, such as recommending set_layer_property for simple property changes and other tools for more complex tasks.

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