create_map_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'pinned to a drawing' and how to structure 'data', but does not explain side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible. The output schema exists but the description does not reference return 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 extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose with examples; the second provides actionable guidance. 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?

Given the output schema exists, return values need no explanation. The description covers core creation behavior and provides crucial cross-references to sibling tools. However, it lacks details on required parameters like drawing_id (no format or validation), and does not mention potential failures or constraints. Adequate but incomplete for a 5-parameter 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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for schema_id (use from list_map_item_schemas) and data (JSON with pseudo_code for controlled lists). However, it does not explain drawing_id, label, or notes beyond their names. The description adds value but leaves gaps for 3 of 5 parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the tool creates a map item (weld, flange, fitting) pinned to a drawing, using specific examples. It distinguishes from siblings like list_map_items or mark_map_item_accepted by focusing on creation. The verb 'create' is explicit and the resource 'map item' is specific.

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?

Description provides clear prerequisites: schema id comes from list_map_item_schemas, and for controlled list fields use pseudo_code from list_list_items. It implicitly guides when to use this tool (when creating a map item) vs listing or marking. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives for other operations.

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