remove_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'delete' but discloses nothing about irreversibility, whether unsaved edits are lost, whether an active map can be removed, or whether a project save is required. For a destructive mutation tool this is a significant gap.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though so terse that brevity shades into under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with zero annotations the description should still cover the destructive/irreversible nature of the operation and any required state. It covers none of that, leaving the agent under-informed for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single map_name parameter already carries the description 'Map to delete.', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no naming syntax, matching rules, or behavior for a nonexistent map, which is the baseline-3 outcome.

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 and resource: delete a map from the project. An agent can distinguish it from list_maps, create_map, activate_map, and set_map_properties. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from related destructive siblings such as delete_layout or remove_layer beyond the resource noun.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The description never tells the agent to first resolve a map name via list_maps, nor whether the map must be inactive or the project saved afterward.

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