create_map

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

With no annotations, the description shoulders the transparency burden. It discloses side effects: writes a new file, registers in the map tree, allocates the next unused ID, and returns it. It also notes tiles are unpainted. This is clear about the persistent mutation and return value.

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 concise sentences: action and side effects, return value, and follow-up guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a creation tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what is created, where it's stored, what is returned, and what to do next. It doesn't explain defaults or all parameter relationships, but the schema handles those details.

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 the baseline of 3 applies. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics, but it does provide context (e.g., blank map implies no initial tiles, ID allocation). This is acceptable given the schema's thoroughness.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a new blank map' with specific resources (data/MapNNN.json, MapInfos.json). It distinguishes itself from sibling map tools like update_map, delete_map, and resize_map by specifying creation and registration behavior.

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?

Provides explicit follow-up workflow: 'Paint tiles afterward with paint_tiles/fill_area' and 'add events with create_map_event/create_npc.' This implies the tool is for initial map creation and guides subsequent steps. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements, but the context is strong.

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