add_map_frame

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little beyond the act of creation. It does not state that this mutates the layout, whether the change is persisted, what happens if layout_name or map_name is invalid, or that an existing element name may collide. The existence of an output schema covers return values, but the mutation semantics remain opaque.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the guidance dimensions rather than being a model of tight-but-complete writing.

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?

A fully documented schema and an output schema mean parameters and returns are covered, so the description need not restate them. However, for a mutating layout-construction tool with zero annotations, the absence of any prerequisite or side-effect statement leaves a real gap that the structured fields cannot fill.

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 100%, so all seven parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only gestures at 'a page position', which corresponds to x/y, adding nothing about units, defaults, sizing, or the map_name fallback that the schema does not already say. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Specific verb (add) plus resource (map frame) plus target container (a layout) and rough placement (a page position). An agent knows exactly what the tool does, but there is no differentiation from the many layout-element siblings such as add_layout_text, add_layout_legend, or add_layout_scale_bar.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that the named layout must already exist), and no routing against sibling layout tools. The only hint is the parenthetical notion of placement.

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