add_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the operation is additive but does not describe error handling (invalid path, existing layer), authorization needs, side effects, or what happens if the map_name is missing. The minimal information leaves the agent underinformed about the tool's behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and supported data sources. No unnecessary words, but it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values, but it fails to cover prerequisites (map must exist, project open) and error cases. For a mutation tool, this incomplete context could lead to invocation failures.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions that 'path' can be a URL or file path and lists data types, but it does not explain the format, examples, or the purpose of 'map_name' (default behavior, active map assumption). The description adds limited value beyond the parameter names.

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 data to a map') and specifies supported data types (feature class, shapefile, raster, .lyrx layer file, web service URL) and sources (path or URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'remove_layer' or 'create_feature_class'.

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 implies usage: when you have a path or URL to data to add to a map. It lists supported formats, providing context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., if the map doesn't exist) or mention alternatives like 'create_feature_class' for creating new data.

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