修改已有图层的样式（颜色、透明度、标注样式等）
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| layerId | Yes | 图层ID | |
| labelStyle | No | 标注样式（font, fillColor, outlineColor, outlineWidth, scale 等） | |
| layerStyle | No | 图层样式（color, opacity, strokeWidth, pointSize） |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the annotation, such as whether style objects are merged or replaced, or whether the layer must already exist. It simply restates the modify intent, so it is adequate but not enriching.
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, concise sentence in Chinese that front-loads the action and target without any filler. It earns its place with no redundancy.
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 moderate complexity of the tool (3 parameters, nested objects) and the absence of an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not address whether style updates are partial or full replacements, nor does it mention that layerId must reference an existing layer. The schema and annotations fill most gaps, but the description leaves some behavioral ambiguity.
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 layerId, labelStyle, and layerStyle are all described in the schema. The description only mentions examples (color, opacity, label style) that mirror the schema properties, adding no new meaning. The optionality and structure are already clear from the schema.
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 uses the specific verb '修改' (modify) and resource '已有图层的样式' (existing layer's style), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like updateEntity (which updates entities) and setLayerVisibility (which only toggles visibility). It precisely identifies the action and target.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like updateEntity or setLayerVisibility. It does not state exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools share conceptual boundaries (e.g., addMarker vs addBillboard vs addLabel, addPolyline vs addCorridor vs addWall, flyTo vs setView), though descriptions clarify most cases. The overlap is notable given the large tool count.
All tools use lowerCamelCase with a consistent verb-first pattern (add*, load*, set*, remove*, update*). Some generic verbs like control and update are reused, but the naming is predictable and readable.
43 tools is well beyond the recommended range. Many add* functions for different primitive types could be consolidated into one entity-creation tool, reducing bloat and cognitive load without sacrificing capability.
The tool set offers strong coverage across entities, layers, camera controls, and animations. Minor gaps include lack of entity information retrieval and direct geometry re-editing, but core workflows are well supported.