update_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries safety and side-effect transparency. It reveals important behavioral constraints: no tile repainting, no dimension changes, and the rationale (desyncing tile data array). It could go further by stating persistence or validation behavior, but the key constraints are disclosed.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and examples, then immediately state limitations and an alternative. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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's complexity (nested updates object, 3 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential scope, constraints, and the key alternative (resize_map). It does not mention return behavior or validation, but the rich schema and the explicit boundary conditions make the description largely sufficient for safe 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 coverage is 100% and both mapId and dryRun are well described in the schema. The description adds examples of updatable fields ('name, display name, bgm, encounters') but does not further elaborate the `updates` object semantics beyond what the schema already says ('Partial MapData properties'). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('map's top-level properties'), listing concrete fields (name, display name, bgm, encounters). It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it does not repaint tiles and cannot resize, tying to update_map_tree/resize_map.

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 when-not-to-use guidance: 'Does not repaint tiles' and 'Cannot change width/height... use resize_map for that.' This directly names an alternative and clarifies scope, which helps an agent choose between update_map, resize_map, or tile-painting tools.

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