updateLayerStyle

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, not readOnly, and not destructive. The description adds the return shape ({ success, data, message, error }) but does not disclose side effects like style merging or re-rendering. With annotations, the added context is modest.

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 sentence plus return type, with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose.

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 7 parameters and nested style objects, the description lacks behavioral details like how multiple style objects interact (merge vs override) or which styles apply to which layer types. The return type is specified but no output schema exists. Completeness is adequate but not thorough.

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%, so baseline 3. The description repeats and slightly expands on parameter details (e.g., 'Cesium3DTileStyle expressions'), but does not add significant new meaning beyond 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 clearly states it updates styling for vector, imagery, primitive, or 3D Tiles layers, distinguishing it from sibling tools like setLayerVisibility or addGeoJsonLayer. The verb 'update' is specific, and the resource 'layer styling' is well-defined.

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 main description lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, but parameter descriptions for imageryStyle and primitiveStyle note 'use setLayerVisibility for show/hide', providing some guidance. However, no comprehensive usage advice is given for selecting this tool over others.

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