set_map_properties

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 is a mutation tool, yet it says nothing about permission requirements, whether changes are undoable, what happens when neither parameter is supplied, or whether the active map is affected by default.

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 zero filler, so it is efficient. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, but no sentence wastes the reader's time.

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, and all three parameters are documented in the schema. However, for a parameterless-required mutation tool with no annotations, the description leaves the agent without any behavioral or prerequisite context.

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 epsg, map_name, and new_name are already documented in the schema, including the 'defaults to the active map' note. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource pair ('Rename a map', 'change its coordinate system') that maps cleanly onto the new_name and epsg parameters. It distinguishes itself from rename_layer by operating on maps rather than layers, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like create_map or list_maps.

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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. An agent gets no help deciding between this and rename_layer or activate_map, nor any hint that at least one of the two properties should be supplied.

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