update_map_tree

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 that this is a write operation ('Edit') and adds important behavioral constraints: every referenced map must exist, non-zero parentId must exist, and the tree must stay acyclic. It also scopes the effect to MapInfos.json only, which is valuable context beyond the schema.

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. The first sentence states purpose and scope, the second adds batch and validation context. No wasted words; every clause earns its place.

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 tool is moderately complex with batch updates and validation rules. The description covers the core purpose, scope, and constraints. The schema fully documents the parameters, including dryRun behavior. A minor gap is that the description doesn't mention the return diff for dryRun, but the schema covers it, so the description is sufficiently complete for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 adds semantic value by explaining the batch nature ('takes a batch of per-map updates') and the validation rule about existing maps and acyclicity. This goes beyond the individual property descriptions in the schema, reinforcing how the parameters interact.

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 verb 'Edit', the resource 'map tree (MapInfos.json)', and the specific operations 'reparent, reorder, rename, or expand/collapse maps'. It explicitly distinguishes from other map tools by adding 'only' and 'without touching their tiles or events', which helps differentiate it from siblings like update_map and get_map_infos.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: for editing the map tree structure, not for map tiles/events. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the 'only' and 'without touching' phrasing implies exclusions that separate it from update_map and similar tools. The batch and validation constraints also give practical guidance.

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