Set Layer Order

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

The description discloses important behaviors: 'Clears any custom draw order (it freezes a snapshot list)' and explains that unlisted layers keep their slots. This adds significant value beyond the idempotentHint annotation, clarifying a potential pitfall for future layers.

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 concise (two sentences) but packs essential information. The first sentence establishes purpose and order direction; the second covers side effects. Slightly more structure (e.g., bullet points) could improve readability, but it's efficient.

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?

Given only one parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior: it explains the ordering semantics, the effect on unlisted layers, and the important caveat about custom draw order being cleared. No gaps remain.

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 sole parameter layer_ids is explained thoroughly: 'ordered list of layer ids from top (drawn last) to bottom; unlisted layers keep their slots.' This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, especially given 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Reorder layer tree nodes; tree order is draw order.' It specifies a specific verb (reorder) and resource (layer tree nodes), and the action is distinct from sibling tools like 'move_layer_to_group' or 'set_layer_style'.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides context about ordering direction and side effects, but lacks comparative guidance (e.g., when to use move_layer_to_group vs this tool).

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