addGeoJsonLayer

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's addition of mutual exclusivity and supported geometry/rendering provides useful context but does not disclose potential side effects, error handling, or authorization requirements. The description adds some value beyond annotations.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes key details without unnecessary words. Every part 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?

The description covers the main purpose, supported geometries, rendering options, and a critical constraint. Minor gaps: does not explain what happens after adding (e.g., layer appears on map) or mention the optional sessionId parameter's purpose (multi-browser). Still, it is largely complete for a layer addition tool.

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 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of data and url (not fully captured in schema descriptions) and summarizing the style configurability (color, choropleth, category), which is more specific than the schema's generic 'Style config' description.

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 action ('Add GeoJSON layer to map'), specifies supported geometry types (Point/Line/Polygon) and rendering options (configurable color/choropleth/category), differentiating it from siblings like addMarker, addPolygon, etc.

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 mentions the mutual exclusivity of 'data' and 'url', which is a key usage constraint, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives (e.g., addPolygon) or any context about prerequisites or limitations.

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