Augmap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the write-without-destruction profile is covered. The description adds the geographic eligibility constraint (continental US only) but says nothing about cost, auth, rate limits, or what happens on partial failure. Its statement that it returns map_id and map_url is redundant given an output schema exists.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, with no wasted wording. The brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it edges into under-specification given the tool's complexity.

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 an 11-parameter creation tool with a nested view object and zero required parameters, two sentences are far from sufficient to call correctly. The output schema excuses explaining return values, but the relationship among destination, view, route_stops, day_noun, and interests is left entirely undocumented.

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 contributes no meaning for any of the 11 parameters beyond the geographic scope hint for `destination`. Schema coverage is 73%, leaving the nested `view` object, `interests`, and `travel_mode` undocumented, and nothing in the description explains how destination, view, route_stops, and interests interact to shape the created map.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a map of places') and bounds the scope geographically to the continental US, which is meaningful for the `destination` parameter. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from siblings such as map_update or map_edit_places, but the create-vs-edit distinction is inherent in the verb.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus map_update, map_save, or map_search_places, and no stated prerequisites. An agent must infer that creation precedes editing from the name alone.

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

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is the extra context, and it delivers: deleting a list does not destroy places, it relocates them, and each op result carries list_id and kind. The key consequence an agent needs before a destructive batch call is present. It does not mention the 20-op batch cap or conflict behavior, and the clause 'moves its places to Unscheduled or to.' is garbled and partially loses its meaning.

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, front-loaded with the operation set, which is good structure. However the third sentence's truncated fragment ('or to.') is a defect that costs space without conveying meaning and forces the reader to guess the destination rule.

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 destructive, batched mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the two most important behaviors (delete relocates places, results return list_id and kind). It is still thin on the batch limit, optimistic-concurrency expectations, and addressing (map_id vs draft_handle for unsaved maps), which matter when composing a call.

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 40% across five parameters, so the description should carry more weight than it does. It clarifies the ops payload semantics and adds the plan-list date-in-name convention, but says nothing about map_id, draft_handle, conversation_id, or expected_version, leaving that to the schema's own descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb triad and resource ('Create, update ... or delete lists') and enumerates the update sub-cases (rename, change kind, pin to a plan list), so an agent can tell this is the list-lifecycle tool rather than the sibling map_edit_places. It stops short of naming the sibling it is distinguished from, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 is implied by the operation enumeration and the plan-list naming convention, but there is no explicit 'use this when / use X instead' guidance against map_edit_places or map_create. The one real selection rule (saved vs plan lists) lives in the schema's kind description, not the tool description.

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

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

Annotations already declare this as a destructive mutation, and the description adds useful behavior: remove parks the place in rejected and each op reports list_id and kind. It still omits important behavioral details such as batch atomicity, conflict handling, draft-map constraints, and what restore actually restores.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded, with no unnecessary wording. The operation list and result note are compact and easy to scan.

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?

This is a complex batch mutation tool with five parameters, nested oneOf operations, destructive annotations, and no output schema. The description is far too thin for that complexity and leaves key behaviors like expected_version conflicts, draft handles, and op-level failure semantics undocumented.

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 only 40%, so the description must compensate, but it says almost nothing about the parameters. It names the supported ops and one result field, but does not explain map_id, ops structure, draft_handle, expected_version, op_id, or the required place identifier conventions.

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 verbs and resource: add, update, move, remove, restore places. It clearly communicates that this is the place-editing tool, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as map_edit_lists or map_update.

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?

It lists supported operations but gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternative-tool routing. An agent must infer from the operation names alone when this tool is appropriate versus other map-editing tools.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming the returned state components, notably pending_changes and version, hinting this is a sync/read-current-state endpoint, but says nothing about cost, permissions, or the read-only nature of share_url access.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The noun-list style is compact but slightly cryptic, since the fields are not labeled as return values.

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?

With an output schema present and 80% param coverage, the description need not explain return shapes, and annotations cover safety. However, for a 5-parameter tool with three mutually exclusive access modes (map_id, share_url, draft_handle) and a sync parameter, the description is too terse to help an agent pick the right mode confidently.

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 80%, with map_id, share_url, and since all documented in-schema, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description mentions version and pending_changes but does not connect them to the since parameter or explain the map_id/share_url/draft_handle selection, so it adds no meaning beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read a map") and enumerates the state fields returned, so the agent knows this is a single-map full-state read. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like map_list or map_search_places, and the bare noun "lists" could momentarily be confused with the map_list tool.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the general "fetch current state" call versus map_list (enumerate maps) or map_search_places (partial lookup).

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

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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world call, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds that shared maps are included and names the returned identifiers, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or how many results come back absent a limit.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, and the return fields are appended efficiently. No filler or 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?

For a simple zero-required-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope and the key return identifiers well. The remaining gap is the limit/pagination behavior, which is minor for a read-only listing call.

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 single optional parameter 'limit' has no schema description at all (0% coverage) and the description never mentions it, so nothing is added about its meaning or the 1-50 range. With only one parameter and a default listing behavior, the omission is tolerable but leaves the agent relying on the schema's bare constraints.

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 names a specific verb (List) and a clearly bounded resource: the traveler's saved maps plus maps shared with them. That scope implicitly separates it from map_search_places and map_get_state, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as map_get_state for a single map or map_search_places for discovery. An agent must infer the selection rule from the noun phrase alone.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention that saving requires an authenticated traveler, no explanation of what happens to an unsaved draft, and no note about failure modes for invalid map_id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema and two parameters, one of which encodes a non-obvious draft-versus-saved distinction. The description never explains the draft path, expected return, or error behavior, leaving an agent unable to call it correctly in the unsaved-map case.

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 only 50%: map_id carries a pattern but no description, and draft_handle documents itself. The description discusses neither parameter, not even the crucial point that draft_handle applies only to unsaved maps, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Save a map to the traveler's account" gives a specific verb (save) and resource (map) with target scope (the account), which distinguishes it from map_create (draft creation) and map_share. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the agent must infer the create-vs-save boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether the map must already exist, whether this is the follow-up to map_create, or when map_update would be preferred instead. The only usage signal comes from the schema, not the description.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful facts beyond that: results are restricted to the continental US, and the response includes places plus fields_granted per query, hinting that some requested fields may not be granted. It omits other behavior the schema only implies, such as the bounded candidate pool and default result limit.

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?

Two sentences, zero padding, with the purpose and geographic scope front-loaded before the return note. It is efficient, though the second sentence is compressed to the point of being cryptic about what fields_granted actually means.

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?

Incorrect placeholder

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?

Top-level schema description coverage is low (25%: map_id, queries, and conversation_id carry no description), but the nested query properties are extensively documented, so the schema does most of the work. The description contributes the batch semantics implied by "per query" and confirms map_id must reference an existing map, but adds no syntax or constraint detail beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Find places and street addresses") plus a scope constraint ("continental US") and a prerequisite ("an existing map_id"). It is clearly a read/search operation, distinguishable from mutation siblings like map_edit_places, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only usage signal is "for an existing map_id," which implies the tool is used after a map is created or selected. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus map_get_state, map_list, or map_edit_places, and no mention of the multiple search modes (name, text, place_id, near, along_route) that determine whether a call is even valid.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, but the description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say the view change is applied immediately to the user's live session, whether it persists for saved maps, or how drafts behave. For a state-mutating view tool with zero added behavioral context, this is a real gap.

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?

A single five-word sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted, but it is under-specified rather than economical. Front-loading is fine; the problem is that the sentence carries almost no information.

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 tool with six parameters, a required map_id plus a one-of targeting constraint, draft support, and no output schema, the description is far too thin to guide correct invocation. Nothing explains what a successful move returns or how the required targeting choice interacts with drafts.

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?

With 6 parameters and only 50% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate and does not. It says nothing about center-vs-place exclusivity, the lat/lng vs address vs place_id center variants, the zoom bounds (3-16), draft_handle for unsaved maps, or conversation_id.

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?

States a concrete verb pair ('Pan/zoom') and a concrete resource ('the live map'), so an agent can tell this moves the viewport rather than editing places or lists like the sibling tools do. It stops short of naming any sibling or clarifying whether 'live map' includes unsaved drafts.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as map_get_state (reading the view) or map_update (changing map metadata). The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the viewport-navigation tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds that links can be revoked and members managed, which explains where the destruction lies. However it does not say that revoking a link or removing a member cuts off live access irreversibly, nor does it flag that a single tool mixes read ops (list, list_members) with destructive ones. That mixed-mode caveat is the notable missing context.

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?

It is a single dense sentence with no filler, and the primary operations are front-loaded. The trailing clause 'or list and manage the people who joined' is vague, and 'manage' has to stretch to cover both remove_member and set_member_role. Slightly awkward coordination of unlike operations weakens an otherwise compact line.

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?

This is a seven-operation, six-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, so the description carries real weight and leaves gaps: no explanation of what list/list_members return, no permission model, and no consequence statement for revoke or remove_member. The link-versus-member distinction (two separate access-granting mechanisms) is only obliquely conveyed. Adequate to select the tool, thin for invoking the destructive branches confidently.

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 67% and the role, label, link_id, and member_id fields already carry descriptions, including idempotency on label+role and where IDs come from. The description adds only the loose mapping of 'change a link's role' and 'manage the people who joined' to the relevant ops, and says nothing about op itself or the anyOf conditional requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

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 verbs tied to a concrete resource: 'create, list or revoke links', 'change a link's role', 'list and manage the people who joined'. That covers all seven ops conceptually and clearly separates this from map_create, map_edit_places, and map_update. It stops short of naming the exact op values (set_role, list_members, set_member_role) or naming a sibling to avoid, so it is clear but not maximally distinguishing.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not guidance, no mention that map_save or map_create must precede sharing, and no statement about permissions needed to issue a link. Usage is only implied by the enumeration of sharing actions. The one useful hint, that a link can grant view or editor access, is restated from the schema rather than framed as decision guidance.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds no explanation of what that destruction means — e.g. that unspecified fields are untouched while context with mode=replace overwrites prior text. The concurrency behavior (conflict with another's changes) is documented only in the schema's expected_version, not in the description, so the description contributes little beyond the annotation profile.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every item in the enumeration corresponds to a real parameter. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 10-parameter destructive mutation with a nested object and no output schema, the description omits the two behaviors an agent most needs: optimistic-concurrency conflict handling via expected_version, and draft-map targeting via draft_handle. It also never states what a successful update returns or whether a version is echoed back.

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 names six of the ten parameters' purposes, which usefully signals that any subset of settings may be changed (matching the anyOf). However, map_id, draft_handle, conversation_id, and expected_version go unmentioned, and the schema already carries rich descriptions for context, day_noun, route_stops, draft_handle, and expected_version at 50% coverage — so the description adds modest 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 gives a specific verb ("Change") and resource ("a map") and enumerates the mutable settings — title, context, travel mode, interests, day noun, route_stops — which lets an agent distinguish this map-level settings tool from map_edit_lists and map_edit_places. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings as alternatives, so it is clear but not fully 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing says to prefer map_edit_places for place edits or map_edit_lists for list edits, and nothing about draft maps versus saved maps or when expected_version is required. Usage is only inferable from the field list.

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