eda_pcb_layer_set_layer_invisible

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

With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral information. It discloses the return type (Promise<boolean>) and that it indicates success, but it does not explain what happens to layers not specified, the effect of the setOtherLayerVisible parameter, or whether the operation is reversible. This is minimal coverage for a mutation tool.

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 brief and front-loads the function signature followed by a concise Chinese summary. It avoids verbosity, but the signature largely repeats what the tool name implies, and the structure could be improved by separating usage notes from the signature. Still, it is well-sized and scannable.

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 tool that modifies layer visibility, critical information is missing: valid layer identifiers, the exact behavior of setOtherLayerVisible, whether the operation affects the current document or all documents, and any side effects. The presence of a boolean return is noted, but there is no output schema and the description fails to equip an agent to call the tool correctly in varied scenarios.

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 schema only describes generic args and windowId, leaving the actual parameters opaque. The description partially compensates by giving type information (layer?: TPCB_LayersInTheSelectable | Array<...>, setOtherLayerVisible?: boolean) in the signature, but it does not explain the meaning of setOtherLayerVisible or how layer identifiers should be specified. Thus it adds type-level value but lacks semantic depth.

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 '将层设置为不可见' (set layer to invisible) and includes the function signature with the operation name, making the action unambiguous. It clearly indicates this is the inverse of the sibling tool eda_pcb_layer_set_layer_visible, but it doesn't explicitly describe the scope (affecting only specified layers vs. all others), so it's clear but not deeply distinguished.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides only the API signature and a minimal Chinese statement; there is no mention of prerequisites, when to choose this over set_layer_visible, or any context about layer visibility management. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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