setLayerProperties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a mutating operation, what happens on partial failure, whether changes are undoable, or what permissions are needed. However, the enumeration of properties gives concrete evidence about the scope of the mutation.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource then lists properties. No wasted words, though the property enumeration is somewhat redundant with the schema and could be trimmed.

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 mutation tool with nested object properties, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return behavior, error handling, whether unchanged properties persist, or how layer targeting works when both layerName and layerIndex are provided. The agent is left to infer critical operational details.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters including layerName, layerIndex, and every property in the nested object. The description's list of properties is redundant with the schema and adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what is already there. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Set properties of a layer' and enumerates property categories (position, scale, rotation, opacity, blendMode, etc.). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like setLayerKeyframe, setLayerMask, or setLayerExpression. However, the description does not differentiate from the sibling 'batchSetLayerProperties' – which appears to do the same thing for multiple layers – leaving the agent to guess which tool to use for a single-layer update.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The agent receives no help distinguishing this from 'batchSetLayerProperties' (which likely handles multiple layers) or from property-specific setters like setEffectProperties. The description is purely declarative and provides no selection logic.

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