Set Layer Property

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

The idempotentHint annotation already indicates safe retry. The description adds supported property constraints but does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or what happens to unsupported property attempts.

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?

Two concise sentences: first states purpose, second lists supported properties with types. No extraneous words or repetition.

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 simple setter with no output schema, the description covers essential information: what properties can be set and their expected types. It does not mention return values or errors, but the tool's simplicity makes this acceptable.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by listing valid properties and their value types/ranges (e.g., opacity 0.0-1.0, min_scale float). However, it could provide more detail on value formatting for properties like name or scale_visibility.

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 'Set a layer property' with specific verb and resource. It lists supported properties (opacity, name, min_scale, max_scale, scale_visibility) with their types/ranges, distinguishing it from sibling setters like set_layer_style or set_layer_visibility.

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 use for general properties but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like set_layer_style or set_layer_visibility. No exclusions or conditions are provided.

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