update_map_event

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a significant behavioral trait: the write is refused and nothing is saved if the result is structurally invalid, with a force override. This adds meaningful safety context. However, it does not mention permissions, merge semantics, or default response format, though the schema partially addresses the latter.

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 a single sentence of 24 words, front-loaded with the purpose and including a critical behavioral caveat. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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?

Although schema coverage is high and the description discloses a key behavior, the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description lacks usage guidance and does not explain the default response shape beyond what the schema's verbose parameter description hints at. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'force: true' duplicates the schema's force parameter description rather than adding new meaning. No additional parameter semantics are provided 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?

The description clearly states the operation: 'Update a map event's properties' with a specific verb (update) and resource (map event properties). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_map_event (create) and get_map_event (read). The validation nuance doesn't obscure the core purpose.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_map_event or add_event_command. It only implies usage through its purpose statement, without exclusions or situational context.

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