setBasemap

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds the return structure, but beyond that, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as prerequisites, side effects, or authentication needs.

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, tightly written sentence that states the core action and the return shape. There is zero redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and 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?

While the schema and annotations cover much, the description is minimal. It does not mention when to prefer url vs basemap, how the switch interacts with existing layers, or any session-specific behavior. Given the tool's side-effect nature (changing visible basemap), more context would be beneficial, but it is still adequate given the rich schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, and every parameter (url, token, basemap, sessionId) is fully described with types, constraints, and enums. The description adds no new semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 ('Switch the visible basemap style') with a specific verb and resource. It is unique among siblings (no other tool deals with basemaps), so it distinguishes well.

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 provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. Since no sibling directly relates to basemaps, this is less critical, but it also omits context like custom URL vs presets or session-specific behavior.

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