set_raster_symbology

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 says nothing about whether this mutates the layer's existing symbology, whether the change is reversible, whether it requires a valid colour ramp name, or what happens if an invalid colorizer is passed. For a mutation tool with 8 parameters and zero annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence with zero waste. The scoping constraint (raster layer, colorizer, colour ramp) is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 8 parameters, 1 required, 8 undocumented in the description, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell from the text alone whether colour ramp requires the colorizer to be 'stretch' or 'classify', or how break_count and classification_method interact with the chosen colorizer. The description is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 documents each parameter including the colorizer enum-like values and stretch types. The description adds nothing beyond the schema's own parameter texts, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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: set a raster layer's colorizer and colour ramp. This is distinguishable from set_layer_renderer, which handles vector symbology, though the description never explicitly names that sibling. Clear enough for an agent to select among the many symbology tools.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance. The description does not say when to prefer this over set_layer_renderer, get_layer_symbology, apply_symbology_from_layer, or list_color_ramps, nor does it state prerequisites like which colorizer values are valid in which cases. Only the resource is identified, not the context.

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