highlight

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

Annotations already declare the tool as non-destructive, non-read-only, and idempotent. The description adds the return type ({ success, error }) and implies highlight is applied, but does not disclose effects on layer state, persistence, or interaction with other styling. It adds some value beyond annotations but is not rich in behavioral detail.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action. It includes the return type without unnecessary detail. This meets the standard for clear, efficient tool descriptions.

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 simple nature of the tool, complete schema coverage, and no output schema provided, the description adequately covers the main outcome and return shape. It could mention that highlights are undoable via the clear parameter or that styling is temporary, but these are implied by the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all five parameters, including the behavior of featureIndex when omitted. The description adds minimal value by restating that one or all features can be highlighted, which mirrors the schema. No additional parameter semantics are provided.

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: 'Highlight one feature or every feature in a GeoJSON layer.' It specifies the resource (GeoJSON layer) and the scope (one or all features), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like updateLayerStyle or setBasemap. The return type is also mentioned, adding to purpose clarity.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context on its own.

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