rhino_layer_set_current

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It confirms the operation mutates document state ('Set') but says nothing about side effects, error behavior when the named layer does not exist, or whether the change affects subsequent drawing and object placement. For a state-changing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

Two short lines with the purpose statement front-loaded and no filler; every word carries meaning. The Args line is slightly redundant with the schema's parameter name but adds the semantic explanation, so it earns its place for a simple 1-param tool.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers purpose and parameter, but with no annotations the agent is left unsure about failure modes for a nonexistent layer and about prerequisites, so it is adequate with clear gaps.

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% — the schema's 'name' property has only type and title. The description compensates by explaining 'name: Name of the layer to make current,' clarifying that the identifier is a layer name rather than an ID or index, but it leaves format, case sensitivity, and existence requirements unstated.

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 first line, 'Set the active (current) layer,' names a specific verb (Set) and resource (the active/current layer), making the tool's goal unambiguous. It implicitly contrasts with the sibling rhino_layer_get_current, but never names any sibling or scope condition, so explicit differentiation is left to inference.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions — it does not say the layer must already exist, nor does it point at alternatives like rhino_layer_create or rhino_layer_get_current. Usage context is only weakly implied by the bare statement of function, which is insufficient among the large layer-tool sibling set.

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