rhino_layer_isolate

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

With no annotations, the description correctly carries the behavioral burden by stating that all other layers are hidden. It does not discuss edge cases like locked layers or how to undo the isolation, but the primary side effect is transparently disclosed.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with the core behavior stated in the first sentence and a compact Args section. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant wording.

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 single-parameter layer visibility tool, the description is essentially complete: it states the action, the effect, and the argument meaning. The only notable omission is not pointing to an inverse operation like rhino_layer_unisolate, but the tool can be invoked correctly without that detail.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by defining the sole parameter: 'name' is the layer to keep visible. This gives an agent complete semantic understanding of the argument without needing additional inference.

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 uses a specific verb ('isolate') and resource ('layer') and immediately explains the mechanism: hiding all other layers. This clearly differentiates it from related layer tools like rhino_layer_visible or rhino_layer_unisolate.

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 makes the use case clear: keep exactly one layer visible and hide everything else. It does not explicitly mention alternatives such as rhino_layer_unisolate for restoring visibility, but the intended context is evident.

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