set_active_layer

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

No behavioral context beyond stating the action. No annotations are provided, so the description fails to explain what 'active' means, whether other layers become inactive, or any state changes. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 (4 words) and front-loaded. However, it could include additional context without becoming verbose. Still, for a simple setter, conciseness is acceptable.

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 the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about the effect of setting the active layer, such as implications for subsequent operations. The description is too minimal for a tool in a complex environment with 100+ siblings.

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 single parameter 'layerName' has a description in the schema ('Layer name to activate') which is identical to the tool's action. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 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?

Description 'Set the active layer' is a clear verb+resource but adds minimal value beyond the tool name. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_layer' or 'list_layers' by indicating activation, but lacks specificity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'organize_document_layers'). No mention of prerequisites like the layer needing to exist or any side effects.

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