spatial_import_from_remote

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate mutation. The description adds the key behavioral context: it changes the spatial-service, and the schema's dryRun/confirm parameters reveal a preview-then-commit flow. The description's '[changes spatial-service]' tag adds transparency beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail what exactly changes (e.g., whether it overwrites existing layers).

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 that front-loads the action and resource, and includes the endpoint reference and side-effect tag. It is concise and informative, though the endpoint path in parentheses adds a bit of noise for an agent that already has the schema.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description could explain more about what happens after import (e.g., does it return a task ID? does it overwrite?). The dryRun/confirm flow is documented in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat it. However, the lack of any note about remote URL format or authentication is a gap, though the schema's url example helps.

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 75%, so the schema already documents url, dryRun, and confirm. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but the schema itself is fairly clear. The 'kind' parameter is only an enum without a description, and the description's mention of 'layer or field definition' partially clarifies it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Copy') and resource ('a layer or field definition from another spatial-service'), and references the underlying endpoints (/manageLayers/importLayer|importField). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like spatial_create_layer or spatial_add_layer, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 implies usage: importing from a remote spatial-service. It does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like spatial_compare_remote or spatial_create_layer, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing the remote URL. The '[changes spatial-service]' tag hints at side effects but doesn't provide explicit when/when-not guidance.

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