Connect GeoJSON feature bus

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-destructive write operation. The description adds specifics about what is created (scaffold with feature rows, property maps, style rules, adapter source, projection/privacy notes), but does not disclose any potential side effects or prerequisites beyond the parent path. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and enumerates the scaffold components. It is concise and contains no filler, though the listing is dense and could be seen as a run-on. Still, it 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?

Given the tool has 10 parameters (all optional), no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It lacks usage context, parameter-role mapping, and any indication of what the resulting scaffold looks like or how it integrates into the project. The mention of 'projection/privacy notes' is opaque and unsupported by 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 only 20% (only name and parent_path have descriptions). The description mentions 'adapter source', 'feature rows', 'property maps', and 'style rules', which loosely map to adapter_url/adapter_mode/source_label, feature_count, property_count, and style_rule_count, but it does not clarify the remaining parameters like active, geometry_mode, or their relationships. The compensation is partial and leaves many parameters unexplained.

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's purpose: 'Create a GeoJSON feature scaffold' with a specific list of included elements (feature rows, property maps, style rules, adapter source, and projection/privacy notes). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'connect_*' tools by naming GeoJSON feature bus 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no preconditions, and no examples of appropriate scenarios. It merely describes what it creates without any context for selection.

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