wms_add_layer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action (add layer) and parameter semantics, with no mention of side effects, permissions, errors, or what the output contains.

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 concise with a clear first sentence stating the action, followed by formatted parameter explanations. No unnecessary content.

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 6 parameters with some undocumented, the description adequately explains the main parameters but lacks details on output (even though output schema exists), error conditions, or project persistence. Could be more complete for a mutation 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains url, layer, style, and layer_name, and indirectly mentions crs via ows_list_capabilities, but does not describe the format parameter or defaults beyond what the schema provides. Adds meaningful context for most but not all parameters.

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 uses specific verb 'Add' and resource 'WMS raster layer' to the project. It clearly distinguishes from sibling add-layer tools (wmts, wfs, wcs, xyz) by specifying 'WMS' and 'raster'.

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 when to use (when adding a WMS layer) and references sibling tool `ows_list_capabilities` for discovering options. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives.

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