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.