create_map

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states it 'Writes the next-free MapXXX.rxdata (blank Table[w,h,3]) + MapInfos entry', which is a concrete behavioral disclosure, and describes the return value (id plus size_advisory and design guide). It does not mention permissions or error conditions, but for a creation tool, the side-effect and return information is strong.

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 three sentences long and front-loads the core action. The all-caps opening phrase is attention-grabbing but earns its place by highlighting the key decision. It packs in side effects, return values, and related tools without waste, though it is slightly dense. Overall, every sentence contributes useful information.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers return values (id, size_advisory, design guide), side effects (writes file + MapInfos), and the size decision process. It also provides guidance for follow-up tools, making it contextually rich. It does not mention parentId/tilesetId, but the schema covers those defaults, so the description is adequately complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond by explaining the decision logic: 'SIZE IS THE FIRST DESIGN DECISION' and connecting purpose to default sizes (e.g., interior=20x15, town~40x35). It also clarifies that width/height can be set explicitly as an alternative to purpose, which adds semantic value not fully captured by the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a new map') and immediately clarifies what this entails: writing a MapXXX.rxdata file and MapInfos entry. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly directing subsequent painting/preview actions to apply_autotile, scatter_tiles, set_map_tiles, and render_map, making clear this is for creation, not editing or rendering.

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 usage context: pass a purpose for a sensible default size, or set width/height explicitly. It also names alternative tools for follow-up operations ('Paint with apply_autotile / scatter_tiles / set_map_tiles, preview with render_map'), which helps the agent decide when to use this tool versus others. No explicit 'when not to use' is given, but the alternatives cover the main cases.

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