layer_set_opacity

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

The description only discloses the opacity range. With no annotations provided, it fails to specify behavioral traits like persistence, side effects (e.g., map refresh), or prerequisites (e.g., layer must exist). Minimal information beyond the schema.

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, complete sentence that front-loads the main action and immediately provides the key constraint (range). No extraneous words.

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 simple setter tool with an output schema present, the description adequately covers the input values and purpose. It could mention that opacity is clamped or that layer_id must exist, but given the tool's simplicity, it is sufficient.

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 adds essential meaning to the opacity parameter by defining the range and its mapping to transparency. However, the layer_id parameter receives no additional explanation. Given schema coverage is 0%, this is informative for one of two parameters.

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), the resource (a layer's opacity), and specifies the valid range (0-100). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like layer_set_visibility, which deals with boolean visibility.

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 compared to alternatives, such as when to use opacity vs. visibility or other layer adjustments. The description simply states what it does without context.

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