set_layer_properties

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. The description adds the list of affected layer properties, but it does not disclose other side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites beyond what the schema and annotations already communicate.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and immediately lists the affected properties. The bilingual repetition is minimal and not padded with filler.

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 low-complexity setter with one required parameter and four optional properties, the description combined with the rich parameter schema and destructiveHint is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not explain return values or failure behavior, but no output schema exists and those details are not essential for this tool.

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%, with each parameter already explained in both Chinese and English. The description's property list mostly restates the schema fields and does not add meaningful new semantics beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Change layer properties' and enumerates exactly which properties are affected (hidden, frozen, wire colour, render visibility). It does not explicitly contrast against sibling tools like hide_objects or freeze_objects, so full sibling differentiation is not achieved.

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?

When to use this tool is implied by the description: the agent should use it when layer-level properties such as hidden, frozen, color, or renderability must be changed. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tools to choose for object-level hiding/freezing.

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