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

Goes well beyond annotations: changes are saved in place and surface on the public page, the return shape mirrors create_market_map with a status field requiring polling, and billing is disclosed (one credit only when companies are added; style/layout edits free). It also names a concrete removal example ("remove Acme"), which is consistent with destructiveHint=true and makes the destructive surface tangible.

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 opening clause front-loads the capability and the example instructions are the highest-value content. It drifts into a long run-on with billing and account requirements appended, but each sentence carries non-redundant 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return shape (same fields as create_market_map, including status) and the async polling requirement. Auth, cost, and persistence are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling.

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 100% and the schema already states where map_id comes from and that long pasted lists are fine with the instruction above them. The description's example instructions add flavor but no constraints or format rules beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline.

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 ("Change a market map the account owns or co-authors, in plain words") and immediately distinguishes itself from create_market_map and get_market_map by naming both as the source of map_id. The example instructions make the nature of the operation unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: map_id comes from create_market_map or get_market_map, and when status is 'building' the agent should poll get_market_map until 'done'. It lacks an explicit exclusion statement (e.g. don't use this to create a new map or to reorder outside style/layout), so it falls just short of a 5.

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