create_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only says 'create', which hints at mutation but does not mention side effects, permissions, return values, or anything about existing data. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that concisely states the purpose. It contains no fluff and every word adds value.

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?

While the schema documents parameters well, the description lacks behavioral context (e.g., what 'current project' means, whether the map is persisted, any side effects). For a simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is a minimal but acceptable level of completeness, though more context would help.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters (name, width, height, parentId) with 100% coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 'Create a new map in the current project' clearly identifies the action (create) and resource (map), and adds context about the current project. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the resource is distinct enough among siblings like create_project and create_event.

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 guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description merely states what it does, leaving the agent without context on when to choose it over other creation tools.

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