update_map_feature

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it never says whether omitted parameters leave fields untouched or whether passing null clears them, nor how errors or non-existent feature_ids are surfaced. For a 15-parameter mutation tool this leaves real behavioral questions unanswered.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the operation list is terse. No filler, no repetition of the tool name.

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?

A single short sentence is inadequate for a 15-parameter mutation tool with 33% schema coverage, no output schema, and several undocumented fields (feature_id, pixel_coordinates, extra, project, document) plus the unresolved position-vs-points distinction. Critical semantics such as partial-update behavior and pixel vs geographic coordinate modes are simply 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 coverage is only 33% across 15 parameters, so the description is expected to compensate and must map operations to fields. It is not an operation list; it is a single sentence naming no parameter, so it contributes nothing that the schema does not.

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?

Specific verb ('Change') plus resource ('map feature'), with an enumeration of the six operation families (rename, move, reshape, relink, restyle, hide). This lets an agent distinguish it from create_map_feature / delete_map_feature even though those siblings are not named. It stops short of a 5 only because sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb list: the agent can infer this is the tool for modifying an existing feature rather than creating or deleting one. But there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of prerequisites (e.g. that the feature must already exist, or that you need its feature_id from browse_tree/search).

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