simplify_layer

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses significant behavioral detail: drift is measured in the manifest, feature count is verified unchanged, vertex counts before/after are included, topology is preserved, and non-CRS inputs are refused. These details materially affect how an agent interprets results and plans calls.

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 compact yet information-dense. Every sentence adds a necessary behavioral or CRS-related detail, and the primary purpose is stated first. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name appears.

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 simplification tool with three parameters and an output schema, the description covers the algorithm, topology preservation, CRS handling, tolerance units, output measurements, feature-count verification, and refusal conditions. Nothing essential for correct invocation or interpretation is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the parameter-semantics burden. It thoroughly explains tolerance behavior across geographic and projected CRS, which is essential for correctly using tolerance_meters. input_path and output_path remain self-explanatory, so no further description is needed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Simplify geometries', and further specifies the algorithm (Douglas-Peucker) and a key invariant (topology preserved). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like buffer_layer, explode_layer, or dissolve_layer.

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 gives clear operational context, especially around CRS handling: geographic inputs are simplified in estimated UTM and returned in the input CRS, projected inputs use CRS units, and missing CRS causes refusal. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is sufficient for a geometry-simplification operation.

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