maps_swap_route_endpoints

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the mechanism (rebuilding URL parameters), preconditions (expected values must match active request), failure behavior (fail closed), and preservation of mode and avoid constraints. It omits any return value or side effect but provides substantial behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and packs necessary details (preconditions, failure modes, preservation) without fluff. Every clause adds value.

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?

Given two required params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the swap action, preconditions, and failure behavior, but leaves ambiguity around what 'fresh' means and what the tool returns or updates on success. It doesn't explicitly state the effect on the map/URL state after swap, which could confuse an agent.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does: expectedOrigin and expectedDestination are defined as expected values that must match the active canonical request, clarifying they are validation inputs rather than the new swapped values. This adds meaningful semantic beyond the plain string schema, though format specifics are not given.

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 swaps origin and destination for a directions request, differentiating from sibling tools like maps_directions or maps_set_travel_mode by specifying the action on an existing request. The implementation detail (rebuilding URL params vs. UI button) reinforces uniqueness.

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 usage for swapping endpoints on an active simple request and mentions failure conditions (waypoint routes, omitted origins), but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like maps_directions or maps_get_route_share_link. There's no direct 'do not use for X' or 'use this when Y' guidance, though prerequisites are stated.

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