delete_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key side effects: reparenting direct children to the parent (preventing subtree deletion) and not touching System.json. This goes beyond a simple 'delete' statement, though it omits irreversibility and permission requirements.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. It efficiently explains the deletion mechanics and the important exception about child reparenting without 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?

Given the tool has only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors well. However, it does not mention return values on success/failure or error conditions (e.g., what if mapId doesn't exist). For a destructive operation this is a minor gap, but overall it provides sufficient context for most usage.

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%, with both parameters (mapId, dryRun) clearly described. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 with a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('map'), and details exactly what happens: remove from MapInfos.json and delete the data file. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_map_event by focusing on the map node itself, not events on it.

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 implies usage when deleting a map node, and notes it does not touch System.json, providing some boundary context. However, it gives no explicit alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use update_map_tree for restructuring'), so guidance on when not to use it is missing.

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