Set Layer Visibility

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

While annotations provide idempotentHint, the description does not explain any behavioral traits beyond the basic action. It omits details such as error behavior if the layer does not exist or whether setting visibility to an already active state silently succeeds.

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, short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. However, the brevity sacrifices parameter detail, which is a structural weakness.

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?

The tool is simple and the description covers the core action, but it lacks completeness regarding error states, return value (if any), and idempotency details (though hinted by annotation). For a straightforward set operation, it is minimally adequate but not fully complete.

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% and the tool description does not explain the parameters. The meaning of layer_id (format, source) and visible (true shows? false hides?) is left entirely to assumption, which is inadequate for an agent.

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 sets a layer's visibility in the layer tree, toggling show/hide on the map. The verb and resource are explicit and the tool name itself is descriptive, making differentiation from siblings like set_layer_property straightforward.

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, nor are there any exclusions or prerequisites. The description simply states the action without any context for decision-making.

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