set_basemap

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 never states that this is a state-changing mutation of the current map, whether the change is reversible, what happens if the basemap name is invalid, or which map is affected — all of which matter for a mutating 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, followed by the value list that earns its length by substituting for a missing enum. No filler.

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 no explanation, and the required basemap_name values are covered. However, with no annotations and a second optional parameter, the description says nothing about mutation semantics or which map is targeted by default.

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% (baseline 3), and the description goes beyond the schema by enumerating the accepted basemap_name values, which the schema does not constrain with an enum. It does not clarify the optional map_name parameter, but the enumeration is genuine added value.

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 ('Set') and resource ('basemap'), and the enumerated valid values make the operation concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like set_layer_renderer or set_map_view, but the tool's scope is unambiguous from the name plus description.

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?

Usage is only implied — the enumerated basemap names tell the agent what values are acceptable, which is a form of guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note about acting on the active map versus a named map.

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