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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to restate those. The description adds no extra behavioral details beyond 'update' and 'by map item id', such as side effects or error scenarios. Since annotations carry the main behavioral load, the description adds minimal value here.

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 description is very concise and contains no fluff, but it is slightly repetitive: 'Update map item' and 'Update one CMS map item by map item id' convey the same idea. The 'Guidance' section feels redundant. Overall, it is efficient and clearly structured, but not perfect.

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?

The description provides minimal context, but the parameter schema is highly detailed, including special cases (e.g., 'Requires status='stock'' for publishedDate, 'Do not send scheduled' for status). Since there is no output schema, explanation of return values is not required. The context is effectively supplied by the schema, so the tool is functionally complete despite the sparse description.

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 100%, with each parameter having a detailed description (e.g., 'Omit to keep the current name'). The tool description itself does not add any parameter-level information, so it provides no extra value beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and this description does not elevate it.

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 clearly states the verb (update) and the resource (map item), and specifically mentions updating 'one CMS map item by map item id'. This distinguishes it from other map-related tools (create, delete, get) and other CMS update tools, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 description does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like cms_create_map or cms_delete_map. It only states what the tool does, leaving the 'when to use this vs. others' inference to the reader. There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over siblings or what conditions make it appropriate, so usage guidance is only implied.

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