Add Layout Map

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 only says 'Add a map item', implying a write operation, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing items), authorization needs, or whether the map item reflects the current canvas extent.

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 16-word sentence, front-loading the key action and parameters with no extraneous information. Every word contributes to the purpose.

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 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits details about return values, error conditions, how the map item's content is determined (e.g., current map view), and necessary preconditions. An agent would need additional context to use this tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning beyond types. It clarifies that x, y, width, height are in millimeters and that they specify position and size, which is useful. However, it does not explain coordinate origin (e.g., top-left corner) or the role of layout_name beyond being the target layout.

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 (add), the resource (a map item to a print layout), and the parameters (position and size in millimeters). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like add_layout_label or add_layout_legend, which add different item types.

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 (e.g., add_layout_picture, add_layout_label). It does not mention prerequisites, such as the layout existing, nor does it indicate contexts where this tool is most appropriate.

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