spatial_update_layer

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

The description discloses two behavioral facts: read-only fields cannot be changed, and the operation changes the spatial service. This adds context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and aligns with them. However, it omits the critical preview/confirm mechanism (dryRun/confirm) and does not clarify whether changes are reversible, which is a notable gap given the tool's side-effect nature.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence, however, is cryptic ('Read-only fields of the form cannot be changed [changes spatial-service]') and could be clearer, but overall it is efficient and avoids redundancy. It earns a 4 for brevity and structure.

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 tool with 20 parameters, a required id, and a dryRun/confirm safety pattern, the description is far from sufficient. It does not explain the required id parameter, the preview-then-confirm workflow, or how the many optional parameters interact. An agent would need to open the schema and infer heavily, making this incomplete for correct invocation.

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 only 50% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate by explaining undocumented parameters like keywords, source_link, metadatapath, etc. It does not – it only mentions a few examples that already have schema descriptions (displayname, classification, licence). No additional meaning is added for the many parameters lacking descriptions, leaving agents to guess.

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 the verb 'Edit' and the resource 'layer metadata', and gives concrete examples (display name, classification, licence, enabled). This clearly indicates an update operation and distinguishes it from creation tools like spatial_create_layer. However, it does not explicitly contrast with spatial_update_field, which also edits metadata but at the field level, so it stops short of perfect differentiation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no conditions or exclusions. The description does not mention that this is for layer-level metadata while field-level changes go to spatial_update_field, nor does it hint at the dryRun/confirm workflow for safe previewing. An agent must infer usage from the schema and sibling names.

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