delete_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the destructive action but does not mention whether deletion is permanent, reversible, or has cascading effects on associated data. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a delete operation.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words. However, it is too sparse to fully serve its purpose, so while compactness is praiseworthy, the extreme brevity slightly reduces the score.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It fails to convey parameter semantics, side effects, or any cautionary context. An agent calling this tool would have little idea what consequences to expect beyond 'deleting a map'.

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%, and the description 'Delete an existing map' explains nothing about the required parameters 'id' and 'campaignId'. The agent is left to guess which identifier targets the map and what the campaignId is used for, so the description adds no value beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('map'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like create_map, update_map, and get_map. It also notes the map must already exist ('existing'), which adds useful scope.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites such as the map needing to exist or be deletable. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'Delete'.

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