create_map_event

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default empty page behavior, but omits side effects, permissions, overwrite semantics, or what happens if the map or coordinates are invalid. This is minimal transparency for a mutation tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The conditional default-page note is concise and 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?

No output schema, no annotations, and only 20% schema coverage. The description omits return value, coordinate/x-y semantics, uniqueness constraints, and required prerequisites. It is under-specified for reliable use.

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 only 20% (only 'pages' has a description). The description adds context for pages by explaining the default behavior, but leaves mapId, name, x, and y unexplained beyond their property names. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate more.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Create a new event on a map.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like update_map_event, get_map_event, and other create_* tools.

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 core usage is implied ('Create a new event on a map'), and the note about omitted pages adds a conditional use case. However, it does not explicitly compare against related tools like add_event_command or create_transfer_event, missing an opportunity to clarify when this tool is preferred.

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