omni_map_bootstrap

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does it well: it explains that static docs are rewritten only when missing/version-stale, and that MAP_OVERVIEW.md / CHANGE_LOG.md / FILE_MAP.md are seeded only when absent and never overwritten. This gives the agent a clear mental model of what will and won't be mutated on disk.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: main action, precise overwrite semantics, and usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

Covers the tool's purpose, write behavior, non-destructive seeding rules, and when to apply it. Minor gaps remain, such as what the tool returns and how the optional parameters interact, but these are partly covered by the schema and are not critical for correct invocation. For a mutating bootstrap tool with no annotations or output schema, this is above average.

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%, so the parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline 3 applies. There is no missing compensation needed.

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?

Uses a specific verb pair ('Create or repair') and a precise resource ('agent context pack inside a map folder'), and clearly distinguishes itself from the many omni_map_* siblings by describing its provisioning/repair role. The description makes its purpose unmistakable even without comparing schemas.

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?

Explicitly states the intended use case: 'Use this for map folders the running game has not provisioned' with concrete examples (copies pulled off a device, exported maps, Web-target saves). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, but the context is clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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