set_shapemap_custom_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains acceptable input formats and implies a desktop requirement via 'Verify the render in Desktop', but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, overwrites existing maps, or requires specific permissions. Basic context is present but gaps remain.

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?

Two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and supporting details in a parenthetical. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter formats, and a usage tip. While it does not explain the shapeMap concept or post-operation effects, it is reasonably complete for a setter tool. A slightly longer description mentioning the required report session or success criteria would improve it.

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 75%, and the description largely restates the topojsonOrGeojson parameter format, adding the word 'embedded' for local files. It does not add significant details about page or visual parameters beyond what the schema provides. The description adds marginal value over the schema.

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 the tool sets a custom TopoJSON/GeoJSON map on a shapeMap, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_azuremap_layer_source and set_map_conditional_formatting.

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 indicates a specific use case ('the custom-map upload') and advises verifying the render in Desktop, but does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it. This provides clear context without explicit exclusions.

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