IvedaAI: IndoorMap

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

Annotations already signal destructive and non-read-only behavior, and the description aligns by including DELETE operations. It adds value beyond annotations by documenting the response envelope ('status', 'truncated', 'timedOut') and required body fields (location for maps, filePath/name for floor plans). This is useful operational context, though it does not delve into auth or rate limits.

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 structured as a compact API reference with each endpoint on its own line, parameters listed under each, and a useful response-format note at the top. Despite covering 10 operations, it remains scannable and free of fluff, with only minor repetition of the ivedaai_get_schema pointer.

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 tool's complexity (10 operations, nested body objects, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete: it covers all endpoints, required/optional parameters, required body fields, and even the response envelope structure. It also points to ivedaai_get_schema for full field schemas, filling any remaining gaps.

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 generic input schema only describes high-level containers (body, path, query, operation). The description supplies operation-specific parameter details: path parameters (indoorMapId, floorPlanId), query parameters (sorted, unsorted, withPermission), and required body fields. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions and is essential for correct invocation.

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 'IvedaAI API — IndoorMap operations' and enumerates all 10 REST endpoints for indoor maps and floor plans (list, create, delete, find, update). This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like ivedaai_camera or ivedaai_alert.

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 a complete usage reference by listing every operation and its parameters. It implicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (any IndoorMap or floor-plan management) and even directs to ivedaai_get_schema for full field definitions. However, it lacks explicit 'use X instead for Y' alternatives or exclusion notes.

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