assign_to_layer

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

Annotations already mark the operation as readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds useful context beyond that: a missing layer is automatically created as a side effect, and 'move' implies objects leave their original layer. It does not discuss undo behavior or effects on objects already in the target layer, but the core mutating side effect is clear.

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 very short, front-loaded with the action, and contains no filler. The bilingual phrasing is compact and both versions carry the same essential information without excessive duplication.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description plus fully documented input schema is largely sufficient. The auto-create behavior and the optional object list are covered. A minor gap is that the description itself does not state the current-selection default, though the schema already does.

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%: layer is documented as the target layer name, and objects as an optional list defaulting to the current selection. The description adds no major parameter meaning beyond rephrasing the layer concept and the auto-create behavior.

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 names a specific verb and resource: moving objects into a target layer, with the notable auto-create behavior. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like move_objects_to_new_layer by emphasizing 'target' layer rather than 'new' layer, and from create_layer by combining creation with assignment.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as move_objects_to_new_layer, create_layer, or set_layer_properties. The auto-create note implies a use case, but no explicit when/when-not conditions or alternatives are given.

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