add_layout_scale_bar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It hints that the scale bar is tied to a map frame but omits whether this mutates the layout, what happens if the map frame is missing, whether changes are persisted, or any permission/rate considerations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words, though it is minimal to the point of possibly under-specifying.

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?

With no annotations and a mutation tool that adds an element to a layout, the description should explain side effects, required layout state, or return behavior. It does none of this. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but behavioral aspects remain unaddressed.

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%, so the schema already documents all eight parameters. The description adds the key semantic that the scale bar is 'tied to' the layout's map frame, clarifying the relationship between layout_name and map_frame_name beyond what the schema's individual descriptions state. Baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high; the relational hint warrants a 4.

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: adding a scale bar that is tied to a layout's map frame. It is distinguishable from siblings like add_layout_legend and add_layout_north_arrow by resource, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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, no prerequisites (e.g., layout must exist), and no exclusions. The description is purely a statement of function.

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