set_enabled_layers

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It labels the action as destructive, which is a strong warning, but fails to explain what gets destroyed (e.g., traces on removed layers, board integrity). This leaves risk unclear.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action and key details. It is efficient but could incorporate more behavioral context 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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is too sparse. It lacks details on consequences of changing copper layer count, required preconditions, or interaction with existing board items. Output schema exists but does not reduce need for input context.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It maps 'copper_layer_count' and 'layers' to their roles but does not specify format for the array (e.g., layer IDs, names, or allowed values). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 that the tool sets copper layer count and enabled non-copper layers, and flags it as destructive. It distinguishes from siblings like get_copper_layer_count (read-only) and set_visible_layers (visibility only).

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 implies use for changing layer configuration but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like get_layer_list or set_visible_layers. The 'destructive' label hints at caution but no when-not-to-use conditions.

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