create_new_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses the core behavior of creating a new map and the optional initial viewport parameters, but it does not mention persistence, authentication, side effects, idempotency, or constraints on lat/lon/zoom values. The disclosure is minimal but not misleading.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose followed by a terse Args list covering all four parameters. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no filler or redundant restatement of schema types.

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 low-complexity create tool with no required parameters and an output schema, the description covers the purpose and all parameters adequately. The output schema handles return-value expectations, so the main gaps are the absence of explicit usage guidance and behavioral constraints, but the core calling contract is present.

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?

The input schema has 0% property descriptions, so the Args section compensates by explaining each parameter: optional title, initial latitude, initial longitude, and initial zoom level. It adds the meaningful 'initial' semantics to lat/lon/zoom, but it does not provide value ranges, coordinate formats, or examples, leaving partial but not complete compensation.

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 and resource: 'Create a new Felt map.' It uses a specific verb and indicates a new instance, which makes its purpose obvious. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling read-only tools, but the create verb already separates it from get/list operations.

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 usage context is implied: use this when creating a new Felt map rather than retrieving details or listing maps. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings, nor does it mention any prerequisites or alternative conditions.

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