add_field

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

No annotations provided, so the description must supply safety and behavioral context. It only states 'Add a field' without disclosing permissions, failure modes, or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 to the point, with a clear first sentence and a list of types. No unnecessary words, though it could benefit from a structured overview of parameters.

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 6 parameters and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits return values (despite output schema), prerequisites, and behavior on failure. An agent would lack critical context for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains field_type with valid values, but ignores other 5 parameters (map_name, field_name, layer_name, field_alias, field_length), leaving their meaning and usage unclear.

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 action (add a field) and the target (a layer). It lists valid field types, but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like delete_field or calculate_field, which is acceptable given the uniqueness of the action.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., calculate_field for computed fields). No prerequisites, such as requiring the layer to exist, or when not to use it.

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