Set Raster Style

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: min_value/max_value default to band statistics, hillshade uses band/azimuth/altitude/z_factor, and lists valid options for classification, interpolation, gradient, and contrast. It doesn't describe return values or persistence, but covers core behavior.

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 dense paragraph with no filler. It is front-loaded with the core action and every clause adds valuable parameter or option detail, making it an efficient reference for a 17-parameter 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 complex tool with 17 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers most necessary invocation details, including style-type-specific parameter usage. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., the layer must be a raster layer) and alternative-tool context, but the schema's required layer_id and the 'raster symbology' wording make this largely sufficient.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining style_type variants, color_ramp examples, and parameter relationships (e.g., hillshade parameters). Some parameters like layer_id, red_band, green_band, blue_band, and classes are not explicitly defined, but they are partially inferable from the RGB and hillshade hints.

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 raster symbology' and expands with specific style_type variants ('singleband_pseudocolor', 'singleband_gray', 'multiband_color', 'hillshade'), making it distinct from the broader sibling set_layer_style and apply_style_qml tools.

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?

Usage context is implied by the tool name and 'raster symbology', and the description gives useful style-type choices, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of alternatives like set_layer_style or apply_style_qml, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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