update_map_event

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

The description discloses a key non-obvious behavior: validation refusal and force override, which is beyond what schema or annotations provide. With no annotations, this is valuable context, though it omits details about dryRun or return format.

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 one efficient sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then immediately conveying the critical force/validation behavior.

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?

The description captures the essential behavior for correct invocation (validation and force override), and the schema handles parameter details. Although no output schema is present, the tool's complexity is modest and the description is sufficient.

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?

All parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the 'force' parameter and the structural validation criteria, enhancing the schema's meaning.

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 uses a specific verb 'Update' with resource 'map event', clearly distinguishing from siblings like create_map_event and update_map. It states exactly what the tool does.

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 you need to update map event properties) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions compared to create/delete/get map event tools.

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