map_object_update

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

The description adds that it updates 'transform or safe fields', which provides some behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. However, it does not explain what 'safe fields' means or what happens if the object is not allowlisted, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 concise at 12 words, but given the tool's complexity (1 parameter with many nested fields), it is overly brief and could benefit from more detail without sacrificing conciseness. The structure is efficient but under-informative.

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 description lacks context about what 'safe fields' are, prerequisite conditions (e.g., allowlisting), and potential side effects. While an output schema exists, the description still fails to provide enough information for an agent to confidently decide when to invoke this tool.

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%, but the description does not mention any parameters (object_id, position, rotation, scale, fields, new_name). The agent must rely solely on the complex input schema, which includes arrays, nulls, and patterns, making parameter understanding difficult without additional textual explanation.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'allowlisted live scene object', distinguishing it from sibling tools like map_object_create (create) and map_object_delete (delete). It specifies the scope 'transform or safe fields', making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., object must be allowlisted) or when not to use it. Given the variety of sibling tools, this omission forces the agent to infer usage context.

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