Compare styles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the output layout (before, after, and differences in red), the fixed-camera condition, and the flexible style input forms (object, URL, or file path). This is richer than simply restating annotation signals.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core behavior and output, the second gives the intended use case and input formats. Every clause earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the essential return value (one image with before/after/differences), the invocation context, and the accepted style representations. Parameter defaults and constraints are already in the schema, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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 coverage is high at 80%, and the schema already documents each parameter with descriptions. The description adds value by summarizing how to supply styles ('Pass each style as an object, a URL or a file path') and by implying that center/zoom/bounds/bearing/pitch are shared across both renders via 'at the same camera.' This compensates for the remaining undocumented parameters.

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 states a precise verb and resource: it renders two MapLibre style versions at the same camera and returns an image showing before, after, and differences in red. This inherently distinguishes it from siblings like render_style (single render) and validate_style (validation), even without naming them. The output artifact is also specified, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool accomplishes.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use it after changing a style, to check that the change did what you meant and nothing else, at a few places and zoom levels.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the guidance is concrete and actionable for an agent deciding to invoke it.

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