Set Layer Labeling

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals some behavior (disabling labels, setting attribute field) but omits important details such as what happens if field_name is null, if color is invalid, or if the layer_id does not exist. No mention of idempotency, side effects, or error handling.

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, using two sentences and a brief list-like structure. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately provides actionable usage hints. No extraneous information is present, though a more structured format could enhance readability.

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?

Given the tool is a simple configuration setter, the description covers its core parameters and behavior adequately. However, it does not mention the return value (e.g., success/failure) or error scenarios. The lack of output schema increases the need for such details, which are 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?

The input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains enabled, field_name, font_size, and color, adding context beyond schema names (e.g., color as hex format). However, layer_id is not described, and font_size and color are only noted as optional with types. Overall, the description provides moderate added value.

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 that the tool configures labeling for a vector layer, using a specific verb ('configure') and resource ('labeling for a vector layer'). It lists the main parameters and their roles, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_layer_labeling' or 'set_layer_style', which perform related but distinct actions.

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 provides usage guidance for key parameters: setting enabled=false to disable labels, setting field_name for the attribute field, and noting optional parameters. However, it does not discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., set_layer_property for generic layer properties) or provide any context on prerequisites or limitations.

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