spatial_create_layer

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

The description adds some behavior beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation by saying it 'starts LayerCreation' and 'changes spatial-service', which signals an asynchronous, side-effecting operation. However, it does not clarify what actually changes, how the process is tracked, or what the caller should expect after invocation, so transparency is only partial.

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 genuinely short, but not every part earns its place: '(wiki step 3)' is cryptic and the bracketed '[changes spatial-service]' is ambiguous. It is concise in length but not in clarity.

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 complex 19-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not explain the expected response, whether it returns a task id for spatial_task_status, prerequisites around the upload, or the required confirm/dryRun flow. It leans on external wiki knowledge instead of being self-sufficient.

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?

With 19 parameters and only 53% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate by explaining key params, but it only implies uploadId through 'from an upload'. It provides no guidance on the dryRun/confirm gating workflow, name constraints, or optional fields, leaving many parameters effectively undocumented in the tool definition.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a layer from an upload') and clearly ties the tool to the upload pipeline, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like spatial_upload or spatial_create_field. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with spatial_add_layer or name the alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no actionable guidance about when to use this tool versus spatial_add_layer, spatial_upload, or other siblings. The phrase '(wiki step 3)' is an opaque internal reference rather than a self-contained selection rule, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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