update_layer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond a field list — nothing about whether changes persist, the save/batch-mode implication, or reversibility of a move/parent change.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a colon-delimited field list — dense and efficient, no filler. The only minor issue is that it is a fragment with no leading purpose statement, but nothing is wasted.

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 17-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutable-property surface but omits targeting (layer/sprite/backend), batch vs live semantics, and the save behavior. The schema picks up most of that, so it is adequate but leaves real 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 76%, so the schema largely documents the parameters itself. The description's field list ('name, visibility, lock, opacity, blend mode, color, data, parent group, stack position') maps roughly to parameters like parent and stackIndex, adding only marginal meaning beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('Changes') and resource ('layer properties') and enumerates exactly which fields are mutable, which separates it cleanly from siblings like add_layer, delete_layer, and convert_layer. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative mention. An agent gets no guidance on choosing this over convert_layer, set_sprite_properties, or the batch/live backend parameters that the schema exposes.

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