Set Layer Visibility

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

The annotations include idempotentHint: true, which already conveys idempotency. The description adds no additional behavioral traits such as side effects, error conditions, or authentication requirements. Since annotations carry some burden, the description fails to contribute beyond that.

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 with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple boolean setter tool.

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 tool with only two required parameters and an idempotent annotation, the description is minimal but arguably adequate. However, it lacks details like error handling or consequences of setting visibility on non-existent layers, which could be expected for completeness.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description does not explain the meaning of 'layer_id' (e.g., what format or source) or 'visible' (though visible is self-explanatory). The description provides no added semantic value over the schema.

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 visibility', specifying the action as showing or hiding on the map. Among 50+ sibling tools, this is the only one dedicated to visibility toggling, so it is well-differentiated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_layer_property or set_layer_style. The description simply states what it does without context for selection among sibling tools.

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