build_map

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only restates the write intent. It does not disclose whether an existing MOC gets overwritten, whether a new file is created, or how the 'topic' relates to the generated note, so an agent gets no side-effect or safety information.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the action and object, and contains no filler. It is as concise as the available information allows.

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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is too thin: an agent is not told what a Map-of-Content index note looks like, what happens to existing notes, what the result is, or how the parameters shape the output. The description fails to compensate for the missing structured context.

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 0%, and the description does not define topic, note_paths, or intro, nor even mention them by name. The phrase 'notes you have curated' weakly hints at note_paths but adds no semantic detail, so the schema titles are all an agent has to go on.

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 names a specific verb ('Write') and a specific resource ('Map-of-Content index note'), and the phrase 'over notes you have curated' clearly ties it to a curated note set. This distinguishes it from generic note-creation siblings like create_note or append_to_note, so an agent can understand the tool's role.

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?

It implies a workflow ('notes you have curated') but never states when to choose this over create_note or create_concept_note, nor any exclusions. The context is suggestive but not explicit enough to route an agent reliably.

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