add_fields

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden for a schema-mutating operation. It says nothing about whether the layer must be editable, whether the addition is transactional across the batch, or what happens if one field definition is invalid – all material for a write tool.

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?

A single seven-word sentence with the verb and the batch benefit front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects thin content rather than disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a write tool with zero annotations and multiple sibling field-manipulation tools, the description omits editability requirements, batch failure semantics, and any routing to add_field or alter_field.

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 100%, and the schema already documents layer_name, map_name defaults, and even an example field object. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb+resource (“Add several fields”) and the mechanism (“in one call”), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling add_field by signalling batch behavior. It stops short of naming add_field explicitly, so an agent must infer the single-vs-batch split.

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 mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the obvious alternative add_field for single-field additions. A reader knows what it does but not when to prefer it.

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