Create User Map

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

Annotations already declare the write/non-idempotent/open-world profile, and the description adds a genuinely useful side effect ("Flushes MCP cache") plus the requirement that the body include `type`. It stops short of describing permission needs or what an existing key collision does.

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?

Two labeled lines, front-loaded with purpose then side effects, no filler. Slightly terse for a mutation tool, but every sentence carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the cache-flush note plus required `type` cover the main behavioral surprises. However, for an open-world mutation with a nested free-form `extra` object, there is no mention of failure modes or payload expectations.

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 baseline is 3. The description does add one piece of value by clarifying that `type` is required by the engine and can be supplied via `map_type` or a full `body`, but it does not explain `external_name` or `extra` beyond the 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 states the concrete endpoint (`POST /v1/user-maps/{key}`) and the name/title give verb+resource (Create User Map). It is distinguishable from the sibling update/get/delete/list user-map tools, though the description itself never names them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to create a user map versus updating one, nor prerequisites or which sibling to pick for adjacent needs. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and endpoint.

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