Render style

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 genuinely useful behavioral context by stating the tool also 'reports what the renderer noticed, such as style errors, failed requests and missing icons', plus the fallback-to-style-camera behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then the extra output, then input variations and default behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted 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?

For an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool produces (PNG, plus renderer observations) and how to provide input. It does not spell out where the PNG is returned or saved, but that is partially implied and not critical for initial selection.

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?

With 73% schema coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds meaningful grouping ('Pass the style as an object, a URL or a file path') and clarifies the interaction between camera parameters and the style's stored camera, which is information not present in 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Renders a MapLibre style to a PNG image', with a concrete use case ('see what the style looks like, for example after changing it'). This clearly separates it from validation/spec/comparison siblings, even if show_map overlaps slightly.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool ('after changing it') and explains the camera fallback behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended use is clear enough to guide selection.

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