set_layer_visibility

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the core effect—changing a layer's visibility—and the meaning of visible. However, it does not mention error behavior, what happens if the layer name is invalid, or whether the operation is a true toggle vs. an explicit set.

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 minimal and well-structured, with the purpose stated first and parameter details following in a clear list. Every sentence contributes useful information; there is no filler.

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 two-parameter visibility setter, the description provides the essential invocation details: exact layer name and visible flag semantics. It does not specify behavior for missing layers or errors, but the operation is straightforward and an output schema exists, so this is mostly sufficient.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: 'layer' must be the exact name shown in the Contents pane, and 'visible' maps True to show and False to hide. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema titles.

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 a specific verb (toggle/set) and resource (layer visibility in the Contents pane), and the Args clarify the exact effect. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but no sibling performs the same visibility operation, so confusion is minimal.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusionary conditions. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement; clearer context about prerequisites or alternatives would help.

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