map_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose genuinely useful mutation semantics: keys are 'replaced whole' and empty list/""/false/{} removes a key, plus the stale_after 0/-1 sentinel meaning. However, it is silent on permissions, reversibility, and how the remaining ~33 parameters behave, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a 35-parameter mutation.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Content is efficient, though the jargon 'lint contract' borders on cryptic given no term definition.

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?

Given 35 parameters, 3% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It leaves the agent unable to infer what most configuration fields do or what the tool returns after a mutation.

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 3%, so the description must compensate, but it only explains the generic replacement/removal rule and the stale_after sentinel. The vast majority of the 35 parameters (ontology_mode enum, nested objects like field_values_by_type) are undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Changes') and resource ('a map's title or lint contract'), so an agent knows this mutates an existing map's configuration rather than creating or deleting one. It is clear but offers no explicit differentiation from sibling map tools like map_create or map_delete beyond the verb.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tooling guidance is given. The description explains some field semantics but never tells the agent under what conditions this tool should be selected over map_create or map_delete.

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