set_layer_visibility

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Control layer visibility settings' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, or what happens to other layer properties. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency about its effects and constraints.

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, efficient phrase: 'Control layer visibility settings'. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, has zero wasted words, and appropriately sized for a tool with a clear scope. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that modifies layer states in a creative application, more context about its impact and usage is needed for effective agent operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all parameters clearly documented in the input schema (e.g., 'visible' for layer visibility, 'solo' for soloing). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., how 'solo' affects other layers). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose as 'Control layer visibility settings', which specifies the action (control) and target (layer visibility settings). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'set_layer_3d' or 'set_layer_parent' by focusing on visibility-related properties, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'modify_layer_properties' that might overlap in functionality.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating a layer), or exclusions (e.g., not for non-visibility properties). With many sibling tools for layer manipulation, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about appropriate use cases.

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