Configure Atlas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses configurations like coverage_layer and optional expressions but omits mention of the 'enabled' parameter (which controls atlas activation) and does not state side effects (e.g., modifies existing atlas settings).

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, front-loaded with the core action, and includes essential details in a colon-separated list. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a high-level overview but lacks specifics on the effect on existing atlas settings, the behavior of the 'enabled' parameter, and output (if any). It is incomplete for fully guiding an agent.

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 0%. The description explains coverage_layer as a vector layer ID and mentions three optional expressions, but it does not describe 'enabled' (which has a default true) or 'layout_name' (a required parameter).

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 tool configures a print layout's atlas, specifies the key parameter (coverage_layer) as a vector layer ID that drives one page per feature, and lists optional parameters. It distinguishes from siblings like export_atlas and other layout tools.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it vs. alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., layout must exist), and no exclusions. It does not mention that it should be used before exporting an atlas.

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