Export Mapx

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

The description says that an existing output requires a destructive gate and exact path confirmation, which conflicts with the annotations' destructiveHint=false. This is an annotation contradiction. Beyond that, no other behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 a single compact sentence with two clauses and no filler. It is front-loaded, though the phrase '唯一地图' is ambiguous and slightly reduces precision.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with five undocumented parameters and a contradiction against the annotations, the description is far too sparse to call the tool correctly or safely.

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% across five parameters. The description hints at overwrite confirmation via '已有输出必须使用破坏性门禁并精确确认路径', but it does not explain aprx_path, map_name, output_path, overwrite, or confirm_overwrite_path semantics.

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 names a specific verb and output format: export a single map to a controlled .mapx. This distinguishes it from siblings that export layouts, images, or reports. However, '唯一地图' is somewhat vague, and no sibling tool is named 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?

It gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as export_map_to_image or layout export tools. The only contextual rule concerns existing output, not tool selection.

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