update_map_event

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It doesn't mention whether updates are partial, what happens if the event doesn't exist, whether validation occurs, or what the response looks like. This is a significant gap 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the tool's core function and the affected properties.

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 a nested updates object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It doesn't address return values, error behaviors, or whether all properties are required, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool confidently.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'updates' parameter by listing possible fields (name, x, y, pages), but doesn't explain the structure or types of these fields, nor the semantics of mapId and eventId. The compensation is partial at best.

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 action (update) and the resource (map event), and specifically lists the properties that can be changed (name, x, y, pages). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_map_event (create) and get_map_event (read).

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 for modifying existing map events, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_map_event or search_map_events. There is no mention of prerequisites or conflict scenarios, leaving usage to be inferred.

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