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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real behavioral context by stating the externally visible effect that the public link stops working. It does not cover error behavior (e.g., what happens if the map is already private) or permission requirements, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the consequence in a useful parenthetical. Nothing superfluous.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers the what and the effect. It is missing guidance on the required mapId and on error/idempotency cases, leaving a modest gap.

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 parameter mapId has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, its format, or how to obtain a valid id. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, but it adds nothing about the parameter.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'make one of the user's maps private again', with the concrete outcome 'its public link stops working'. It is clearly the inverse of the sibling publish_map, though it never names that sibling 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 word 'again' establishes the precondition that the map is currently public, so the agent knows the context in which to call it. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternative tools, keeping it 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.