create_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover permissions, side effects (e.g., file system changes), error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic function.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Create a new map in the project.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. No extraneous details or repetition, earning its place as a model of conciseness.

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?

Given the complexity (mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., what happens on creation, error cases), usage guidelines, and output details. While the schema covers parameters, the overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient, especially for a tool that likely modifies project files.

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%, with all parameters documented in the input schema (e.g., map_id, name, project_path, width, height). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a 'map' is created, which is already covered by the tool name and purpose. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance parameter understanding.

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 'Create a new map in the project' clearly states the action (create) and resource (map), with context (in the project). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_maps' (read) and 'update_map_tile' (modify), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_project' (different resource). The purpose is specific but could be more precise about what a 'map' entails in this RPG Maker context.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_maps' for viewing or 'update_map_tile' for modifications. Usage is implied only by the verb 'create,' with no explicit context or alternatives stated.

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