add_web_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation ('Add') but does not disclose permission requirements, side effects on the active map, authentication needs for the service URL, or what happens if the URL is unreachable.

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 front-loaded sentence with a compact parenthetical list of supported service types. It is appropriately sized for a straightforward add operation and contains no filler.

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 an output schema present and full schema description coverage, the return and parameter details are covered elsewhere. However, with no annotations, the description should clarify where the layer is added (active map vs. named map) and any side effects, which it leaves to the schema.

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 'url' as 'Service URL' and 'map_name' as the target map. The description reinforces that a web service URL is expected and lists service types, but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Add a web service layer' — and enumerates the supported service types (Feature/Map/Image service, WMS, WMTS, vector tile). It implicitly distinguishes from the sibling add_layer by scoping to web services, but it does not name or contrast any sibling explicitly.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as add_layer or get_capabilities. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not conditions, or how to choose between adding a local layer and a web layer.

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