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

Annotations only supply the coarse safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false); the description adds the details an agent actually needs: the commit is free, it produces a recoverable revision, it uses optimistic concurrency via expectedRevision, retries are deduplicated by reusing requestId, and the map opens in the editor afterward. That is material context beyond the annotations, and the requestId-retry note complements rather than contradicts idempotentHint=false.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no waste: cost first, then the atomic commit contract, then the conflict path, then the retry rule, then the user-visible outcome. Every sentence adds an actionable fact.

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 3-required-param mutation with no output schema and thin annotations, the description covers commit semantics, concurrency conflict, retry idempotency, and the editor side effect. It still leaves draftId's role and the post-commit result (e.g. returned revision id) unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains draftHash (must be the exact hash) and requestId (reuse on retry), but says nothing about draftId, and it references an 'expectedRevision' that is not even a declared parameter, which may confuse an agent about what to send.

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: commit the exact draftHash as a recoverable revision, and notes the immediate side effect (map opens in the normal editor). It implicitly reads as the terminal step of the prepare/preview/commit pipeline, but it never names a sibling such as prepare_map_draft or preview_map_draft, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives real operating context: the existing map must still match its expectedRevision, conflicts require re-reading and merging the user's changes, and requestId should be reused on retry. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool routing (e.g. to preview_map_draft first).

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