map_update_connection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update label or color' merely restates the tool's function without explaining side effects, partial-update semantics, error handling (e.g., non-existent id), or idempotency. It adds no transparency beyond what the name already implies.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that wastes no words and clearly conveys the tool's purpose. Every word 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?

The tool is simple with two parameters, but the description lacks edge-case details such as whether 'changes' can be empty, what happens if the id is invalid, or what the return value is. Given no output schema, this missing information leaves gaps in the agent's understanding, though it is still adequate for basic usage.

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% for top-level parameters, and the description mentions 'label or color' which maps directly to the 'changes' properties. However, it does not add meaning beyond the schema; the schema already documents the fields thoroughly (e.g., color example, 'Fields to update'). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('existing connection'), with specifics about the fields (label or color). It distinguishes from sibling tools like map_add_connection and map_delete_connection by specifying it updates rather than adds or deletes.

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 phrase 'existing connection' makes it clear this is for modifying an already-created connection, implying it should not be used for adding or deleting. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, but the context is clear enough.

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