Configure Atlas

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

No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether existing atlas configuration is overwritten, required prerequisites (e.g., layout existence), or side effects of enabling/disabling the atlas.

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 concise, two sentences front-loading the core purpose. It could be slightly more structured but contains no fluff.

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?

The description covers the atlas's core functionality but omits behavioral details like return values, error conditions, and the effect of the 'enabled' parameter. Given no output schema and no annotations, it is moderately complete.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining coverage_layer and the three optional expressions. However, it fails to mention the 'enabled' parameter and does not fully clarify the formatting or requirements of the expression strings.

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 clearly states the tool configures a print layout's atlas, specifying that coverage_layer drives one page per feature. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like export_atlas or add_layout_xxx by focusing solely on atlas configuration.

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 for setting up an atlas in a print layout but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other layout tools) or when not to use it.

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