set_layer_visibility

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States mutation in .aprx when save=true and no alteration of source dataset. Missing details on errors (e.g., layer not found), permissions, or side effects. Adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Three efficient sentences, front-loaded with action, use case, and behavioral note. No wasted words. Ideal length for quick understanding.

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?

Covers purpose, use case, behavioral impact, but omits map selection detail, required layer existence, and error conditions. Output schema exists but is not shown; description doesn't discuss return values. Acceptable but leaves gaps for an agent.

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?

Description adds minimal parameter info beyond input schema. Does not mention 'save', 'map_name', 'visible' fields or their nuances. Schema descriptions are detailed, but the tool description does not supplement or clarify. Coverage is 0% from description.

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?

Clear verb 'show or hide' and specific resource 'named layer in an ArcGIS Pro map'. Distinguishes from siblings like set_layer_symbology and remove_layer_from_map by focusing on visibility. Includes use case for layout/map export.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use this before layout or map export' and mutates only visibility, not source data. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but context implies alternatives (e.g., removal, symbology). Decent guidance.

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