add_layer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the type values and the provider fallback, but says nothing about duplicate-layer handling, permissions, whether the layer is registered in the current project, or failure behavior for an unreadable path.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but the trailing Georgian translation ('/ ფენის დამატება') is pure duplication that earns no space and adds no semantics.

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?

A 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage should do considerably more. Nothing tells the agent what state changes or what the return looks like after adding a layer.

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 0% across 4 params, so the description must compensate. It does add value by enumerating type values ('vector'/'raster') that are absent from the schema and by stating the ogr/gdal provider fallback, but leaves 'name' and 'path' completely bare.

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 ('Add a layer from a file/URI'), which clearly separates it from siblings like remove_layer and list_layers. It does not explicitly name any sibling, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g. load_project or headless_command for loading data). Usage must be inferred purely from the verb.

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