set_definition_query

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

Without annotations, the description explains the core behavior (setting a query and clearing with empty string) but omits details such as whether the operation is destructive, requires permissions, or what happens with an invalid query. The description adds some transparency but is incomplete.

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 two sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the key action. Every word adds value, with no extraneous 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is too brief. It doesn't address return values, error cases, prerequisites, or how the map_name parameter fits in, making it incomplete for a tool that modifies state.

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 clarifies that the query parameter is a SQL where clause and empty string clears it, but provides no explanation for map_name or layer_name beyond their names. This leaves significant gaps.

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 tool sets a layer's definition query as a SQL where clause and specifies that an empty string clears it. This provides a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_layer_visibility or set_layer_renderer.

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 provides the behavior for clearing (empty string) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_layer_visibility or select_features. No explicit conditions or exclusions are mentioned.

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