Set Layer Flags

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

With no annotations available, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It discloses two key behaviors: partial updates (only passed fields are modified) and the response behavior (returns the updated `flags`). This goes beyond a bare descriptionhol and provides actionable knowledge for the agent. It does not mention error conditions or permissions, but for a simple flag-setting tool, the disclosed behavior is reasonably sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by crucial behavioral notes (partial update and response content). No filler, highly scannable.

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 tool with 12 parameters ajd no annotations, the description offers minimal context. It does not explain each flag's meaning, the expected input format, potential error states, prerequisites (e.g., layer existence), or the full response structure. The partial-update note is useful, but an agent would still need to infer many details from parameter names. Given the low schema coverage, the description should compensate more aggressively.

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 coverage is very low (17%: only `layer` and `color` have descriptions). The description names 'visibility / render / lock' generically, which covers some flags (view, render, locked) but not the full set (solo, xref, etc.). It does not explain the meaning or effect of each boolean parameter, nor does it elaborate on the color parameter beyond the schema. The general partial-update rule helps, but the lack of per-parameter elaboration leaves agents guessing about the semantics of flags like 'solo' or 'xref'.

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 the tool's purpose: to toggle/set layer visibility, render, and lock flags in a single call. It names the specific resource (layer) and the action (toggle flags), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_layer (creation) or get_object_layer (querying).

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?

The description implies usage: when you need to modify one or more layer flags in a single callhare, as opposed to multiple calls. It doesn't explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context of

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