set_layer_blend_mode

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation operation ('Set') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or side effects. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies layer properties.

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 a single, direct sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral context, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for a mutation tool. The schema covers parameters well, but overall context is insufficient for safe and effective use.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions and an enum for 'blendMode'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining blend mode effects or layer indexing conventions, but the schema provides sufficient baseline documentation.

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 the action ('Set') and the target ('blending mode of a layer'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'modify_layer_properties' or 'set_layer_visibility' that also modify layer attributes, missing explicit distinction.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'modify_layer_properties' that might handle blend modes, the description lacks context on specific use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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