eda_pcb_layer_set_inactive_layer_display_mode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the call returns a Promise<boolean> and indicates success, but it does not state side effects, whether the change is immediate or persistent, or whether it requires an active PCB window. The behavior beyond the return value is opaque.

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 very short and free of fluff, with the method signature and a Chinese gloss. It is efficiently front-loaded, but it is under-specified: the brevity comes at the expense of crucial semantic detail like enum values or usage context.

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?

This is a setter with no annotations, no output schema, and a single meaningful parameter whose enum values are undefined. An agent cannot reliably know what display mode values to pass or what behavior to expect, so the description is not complete enough for correct invocation.

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 description names the parameter 'displayMode?: EPCB_InactiveLayerDisplayMode', which adds some meaning beyond the schema's generic 'args' array. However, it does not enumerate the possible values of the enum type, which is essential for the agent to construct a valid call. The windowId parameter is also not discussed beyond the schema.

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 and resource: 'setInactiveLayerDisplayMode' / '设置非激活层展示模式' (set inactive layer display mode). This distinguishes it from sibling layer tools like set_layer_visible and set_inactive_layer_transparency, though it does not explain what 'display mode' means or what options exist.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of whether a specific window or document must be active. The description is purely a signature and return annotation, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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