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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses concrete consequences: the link stops working and pins, versions, logbook and photos are lost; it is not undoable; and other people's maps are reported as not found. This richly supplements what the annotations already flag.

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?

Well front-loaded with the core action and its destructiveness first, then the confirmation and alternative guidance. It is on the longer side but almost every clause carries actionable meaning for a destructive tool.

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 mutation with full annotation coverage and a trivial schema, the description fills in the return/edge behavior (link dies, non-owned maps reported as not found) and the confirmation protocol, leaving nothing an agent needs missing.

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 single 'maps' parameter is already documented as map_ids or links. The description adds mild context by indicating which link forms and sources are valid, but does not expand on syntax or limits beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 holds.

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 (deletes) and resource (the person's own maps), and further scopes it to maps created via render_map or the InstaMaps Sheets add-on. An agent can clearly distinguish this from update_map, get_map, or render_map.

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 gives the when-to-use condition (only when the person asks in so many words), the required confirmation workflow (name each map by title and confirm first), and names the alternative for the ambiguous case (call get_map with no map to let them tick maps). Nothing is left to inference.

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