update_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It never states whether this is a partial update (unspecified fields preserved) or a full overwrite, what happens to a nonexistent mapId, or whether permissions are required. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action verb front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the trailing 'etc.' adds no information and slightly weakens precision.

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 an unannotated 8-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description omits what an agent most needs: partial-update semantics, failure behavior, and any required permissions or preconditions. The schema covers field-level detail, but the behavioral contract is absent.

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%, so every parameter (name, note, bgmName, bgsName, tilesetId, displayName, disableDashing, mapId) is already documented in the schema. The description recites a subset of these plus a vague 'etc.', adding no semantics beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update map properties') and enumerates representative fields, so an agent knows this mutates an existing map. It does not distinguish itself from potential overlapping siblings, but none of the sibling names (update_event, update_entity) collide with maps.

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 contains no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. needing mapId to exist), and no pointer to alternatives for related operations like create_map or delete_map. Usage is only implied by the word 'Update'.

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