Set Layer Visibility

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

The annotations already indicate idempotentHint: true, which tells the agent the operation is safe to retry. The description adds minimal behavioral context ('in the layer tree'), but does not explicitly describe side effects or state changes beyond what the schema implies. For a simple toggle, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 a single sentence of 12 words, front-loading the verb and noun. Every word contributes to the purpose, and there is no extraneous information.

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 tool with only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. However, it omits important context such as the requirement that the layer must already exist or the behavior if the layer is already in the desired visibility state (though idempotency hint implies no error).

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 0% description coverage for parameters, and the tool description does not elaborate on the meaning of layer_id or visible. While visible's boolean nature is self-evident, the agent gains no additional semantic context beyond the parameter names.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'layer's visibility', and explains 'show/hide on map'. It specifically distinguishes from sibling tools like set_layer_order or set_layer_crs, which modify other properties.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring the layer to exist, or when to prefer this over other setter tools like set_layer_property.

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