Open Interactive Map to Draw Geometry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: the returned Prefab app, the user-driven draw/save/load sequence, session_id surfacing, and how the GeoJSON output feeds downstream tools. It does not contradict the annotations, though it doesn't explicitly remark on non-idempotency beyond implying a new session.

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 multi-paragraph but well-structured with a numbered workflow and clear sections. Each part earns its place, though a few phrases (e.g., 'then capture it') are slightly redundant with the later workflow steps.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description fully explains the return (a Prefab app with link and button), the interactive workflow, session_id usage, downstream GeoJSON consumers, and the option to call gis_get_drawn_geometry directly. It accounts for both user-driven and agent-driven retrieval paths.

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 has 100% coverage with rich descriptions for lat, lon, and zoom. The description only briefly mentions 'optionally center it with lat/lon/zoom', adding little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states 'Open an interactive map so the user can draw GIS geometry, then capture it' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly pointing to gis_validate_geometry for users who already have coordinates and referencing gis_get_drawn_geometry for retrieval.

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?

Provides explicit 'Use when' and 'Don't use when' guidance, naming gis_validate_geometry as the alternative and outlining the workflow involving gis_get_drawn_geometry. This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke this tool.

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