map_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add genuinely useful disclosure: the set of files created, that ontology_mode strict 'enforces concept_types', and notably that contract options are 'lint only, not a write gate'. It still omits permissions, name-collision/reversibility behavior, and side effects.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, leading with the core action before secondary options. The telegraphic phrasing ('templates (slugs) make every page follow one') is dense but wastes no sentences.

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 15-parameter creation tool with nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too terse to be complete. Most parameters and the semantics of the contract/template system are left undocumented.

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 only 7% (just 'reason'), so the description must compensate. It explains kind (journal), ontology_mode (strict/flexible), and templates (slugs), but leaves the majority of the 15 parameters (field_values, concept_types, required_fields, forbidden_fields, machine_path_allow_prefixes, the *_by_type maps) unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Creates a Map or Journal') and defines what gets produced (_map.md, index.md, log.md), so an agent can distinguish it from map_delete/map_list/map_update. However, it doesn't clarify how a Map differs from a Journal beyond 'kind: journal', nor how it relates to concept_new.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no routing to alternatives (map_update, concept_new). The kind and ontology_mode mentions imply some selection criteria but leave the agent to infer them.

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