style_set_heatmap

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses valid radius_unit values, default color_ramp, and failure on non-point layers. Does not mention performance or edge cases, but covers key behaviors.

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?

Three sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Output schema exists, reducing need to describe returns, but description lacks explanation for key parameters (radius, max_value) and does not address prerequisites (e.g., layer must be point type). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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%. Description provides details for radius_unit (enum values) and color_ramp (default), but omits semantics for radius, max_value, and layer_id. Incomplete compensation for schema gaps.

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 'Style a point layer as a heatmap', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from other style tools (e.g., style_set_single_symbol, style_set_categorized) by noting it fails with non-point layers.

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 heatmap styling of point layers and explicitly states the failure condition (UnsupportedGeometryType on non-point layers), giving a clear when-not-to-use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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