Apply Map Theme

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

The description discloses that the tool restores layer visibility state, adding value beyond the annotation (idempotentHint). It does not contradict annotations. However, it does not discuss error scenarios or side effects beyond visibility restoration.

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 packs the core functionality efficiently. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant words.

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's simplicity (one param, no output schema) and the idempotent annotation, the description covers the core behavior. However, it lacks details on expected input format, error handling, and prerequisites, making it somewhat incomplete.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the 'name' parameter, and the description does not explain what the parameter expects (e.g., theme name string, case sensitivity, existence requirement). The tool name and context hint at its purpose, but the description adds minimal value for the parameter.

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 verb 'apply' and the resource 'map theme', and explains the specific effect: restores layer visibility state saved in the theme. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_map_themes (list), add_map_theme (create), and remove_map_theme (delete).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool or when not to. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., theme must exist) or alternative approaches. The context from sibling tools implies a workflow, but the description itself lacks guidance.

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