style_set_cluster

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

The description discloses key behaviors: distance tolerance in 'millimeters at render time', that 'the layer's current symbol is kept', and that it 'fails with UnsupportedGeometryType on non-point layers'. Since no annotations exist, this covers essential traits without contradictions.

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 three short sentences, each adding value: purpose, parameter detail, and behavioral notes. No redundant or vague language.

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 no annotations and an existing (but unseen) output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, failure case, and symbol behavior. It doesn't discuss side effects beyond style change, but that is acceptable for a style tool.

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 description explains the 'distance' parameter meaningfully ('clustering tolerance in millimeters at render time'), but gives no detail for 'layer_id' beyond its obvious identity. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 starts with 'Style a point layer with distance-based point clustering', which clearly states the verb (style), resource (point layer), and specific technique (clustering). It distinguishes from sibling style tools like style_set_single_symbol or style_set_heatmap by explicitly naming clustering.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only constraint is that it fails on non-point layers, but there is no comparison to other clustering methods or other style tools.

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