layer_merge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'merges two layers' but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a destructive operation (source layer deletion is hinted in parameter descriptions only), what merging entails (e.g., combining properties, geometries), permissions needed, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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, efficient sentence in Korean ('두 레이어를 병합합니다'), with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it may be overly concise given the lack of behavioral details.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what merging does, the result (e.g., a combined layer, property inheritance), or potential side effects. For a tool that likely modifies or deletes layers, this lack of context is a significant gap, leaving the agent underinformed.

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%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., sourceLayerId '병합할 레이어 ID (삭제됨)' meaning 'layer ID to merge (deleted)'). The tool description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but with full schema coverage and only 2 parameters, the baseline is high. The description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 '두 레이어를 병합합니다' (merges two layers) clearly states the action and resource, but it's vague about what merging entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like layer_duplicate or layer_reorder. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about the merge behavior or outcome.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when merging is appropriate, or what happens to the source layer (implied by parameter descriptions but not in the tool description itself). It leaves the agent to infer usage from context.

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