Set Layer Scale Range

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

Annotations already cover safety traits (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds only vague context that writes and path restrictions depend on service capabilities and that results are verifiable/structured, without explaining scale behavior, permissions, or side effects in detail.

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 short and not bloated, but the first sentence is too generic to be useful and the second sentence is boilerplate. It is concise without being well-structured or front-loaded with actionable information.

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 tool with 5 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves critical gaps. Although annotations and an output schema reduce some burden, the scale-range semantics and required path/map/layer inputs remain unexplained.

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% with 5 parameters, including aprx_path, map_name, layer_name, maximum_scale, and minimum_scale. The description adds no meaning for any parameter and does not clarify how min/max scale values are interpreted or applied.

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 says only '设置图层' (set layer), a generic verb+resource that does not mention scale range, minimum scale, or maximum scale. It fails to distinguish this tool from sibling layer-setting tools such as set_layer_visible or set_layer_transparency.

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, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The statement about write/path restrictions depending on service capabilities is a generic caveat, not usage guidance.

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