attach_raster_layer

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the state change (attaching a layer to the session) and the return (layer id plus parsed metadata), but says nothing about failure behavior for a bad path, idempotency, or whether the layer is visible by default.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed immediately by the follow-up tool hint. No 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 mutation-flavored tool with four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the action and return shape but leaves parameter meaning and error behavior unaddressed. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 0% and all four parameters (id, name, path, visible) are undocumented in the schema. The description only hints at 'path' via 'a GeoTIFF on disk'; id, name, and visible are left entirely unexplained, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 and resource: 'Attach a GeoTIFF on disk to the session as a raster basemap layer'. An agent can distinguish this from import_geotiff_metadata or get_raster_layer. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the sibling import_geotiff_metadata, which also handles GeoTIFFs.

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?

'Use list_raster_layers / render_raster_layer_png afterwards' gives post-attach workflow guidance, which is useful. But there is no when-to-use-this vs. import_geotiff_metadata guidance, nor prerequisites such as whether the file must exist or the session must be in a particular state.

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