spatial_add_layer

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

The description adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reveals that the tool orchestrates multiple operations, waits for creation events, and changes spatial-service configuration. It does not mention the dryRun/confirm safety gate, but the schema documents that, so this is a useful but not exhaustive disclosure.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the main purpose, enumerates the workflow steps, and appends the key side effect. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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 28-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the overall workflow, the wait behavior, and the side effect on spatial-service, which covers the main orchestration context. However, it does not clarify preview mode vs. actual execution, what a successful invocation returns, or how to interpret failures, so it is adequate but not 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?

The description provides no parameter-level meaning, and schema coverage is only 61%. Several properties such as path, notes, source_link, metadata, and licence fields remain unexplained in both the schema and the description, and the required path parameter has no description. The description does not compensate for those gaps.

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 identifies a concrete composite operation: inspect, upload, create layer, wait for LayerCreation, create field, wait for FieldCreation, and reload intersect config. This is more specific than a tautology and distinguishes it from the lower-level sibling tools, though it never states an explicit end result like 'adds a layer to the spatial service'.

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 phrase 'whole wiki procedure in one go' implies this tool is for when an agent wants the full end-to-end workflow, but it does not name alternatives or say when to use a lower-level tool instead. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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