update_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that tiles are not repainted, dimensions cannot be changed due to data desync, and the response omits tile data/events while reporting counts. Explains the verbose alternative for full record.

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 sentences, each carrying unique information: scope, constraints, and response behavior. No redundancy, well front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 tool with no output schema, it explains return summarization, omitted fields, and how to get the full record. It also handles edge cases like dimension changes with explicit redirection to resize_map.

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 covers all parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds practical examples of allowed update properties and clarifies the response trade-off of verbose, providing meaningful value 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?

Clearly states it updates a map's top-level properties with specific examples (name, display name, bgm, encounters). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly excluding tile repainting, width/height changes, and event edits, pointing to resize_map for dimensions.

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?

Gives explicit when-not-to-use guidance: not for tiles, not for width/height (use resize_map), and not for events. Also mentions verbose: true or get_map for full record, indicating when deeper inspection is needed.

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