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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the link is preserved and continues to work for another hour, the whole document replaces the prior map, and the call fails once the map has been added to an account. These are consequences and preconditions an agent could not infer from destructiveHint/idempotentHint alone.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the replacement constraint, followed by the failure condition. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the full-replacement payload semantics, the link-preservation side effect, expiry timing and the hard failure condition. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly or recognize when it cannot.

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%, so the schema documents id, editToken and map. The description still adds genuine semantics beyond it: map must be the complete document rather than a diff, because the payload replaces the existing map. That constraint is not expressible in the schema and materially affects how the agent builds the call.

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 map') and anchors it to the sibling that produces the resource ('made with create_map'), so an agent can separate it from create_map, preview_map and get_map_spec without opening a schema.

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 a clear trigger ('when the person asks for changes') and implicitly routes creation to create_map. It does not name an explicit when-not-use alternative such as preview_map for verifying a document before applying it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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