ae_toggle_layer_lock

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Lock or unlock a layer' only restates the core operation and adds no context about side effects, idempotency, error behavior, or whether the lock is set explicitly vs toggled. The locked parameter description in the schema clarifies set semantics, but the description itself contributes no extra behavioral transparency.

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 sentence with no wasted words and the core action is front-loaded. It loses a point because it is so minimal that it omits potentially useful context, but as far as conciseness goes it is efficient and clear.

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, a one-sentence description is inadequate for a tool with three required parameters and many sibling tools. It does not mention failure modes, prerequisites, return behavior, or how this tool relates to ae_set_layer_property or other layer-state toggles. The simple signature mitigates the gap, but does not close it.

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%: each parameter (comp_name, layer_name, locked) has a description, so the schema already documents the parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but this is acceptable because the schema covers it. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear verb (lock/unlock) and resource (layer), so an agent can tell what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling toggle tools like ae_toggle_layer_solo or ae_toggle_layer_visibility, nor from ae_set_layer_property which could also affect lock state. The binary lock state is conveyed via the schema, not the description.

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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., layer must exist, composition must be open), nor does it contrast with ae_set_layer_property or other layer-state toggles. Agents must infer usage solely from the name and simple description.

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