Connect map tile overlay

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds a useful feature list and mentions 'token/cache safety notes' as part of the scaffold, but does not explain the actual behavior, side effects, or what the adapter source entails. This is acceptable given the annotation coverage.

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 sentence that starts with the core action ('Create a map-tile overlay scaffold') and then lists what is included. The list is somewhat long but each item contributes meaning. It is reasonably concise and front-loaded, though the long en-dash list makes it dense.

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?

With 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides only a high-level outline of the scaffold's contents. It omits critical context such as return values, where the scaffold is created, how to configure it, or what 'token/cache safety' entails. For a complex scaffolding tool, this is insufficient.

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 only 18%, so the description carries a heavy burden. While it lists high-level constituents like viewport metadata and attribution rows, it does not map them to the 11 parameters (provider, style_id, center_lat, etc.) or explain their meaning. The description is far from compensating for the sparse schema documentation.

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 creates a map-tile overlay scaffold and enumerates its key components (tile layer maps, viewport metadata, attribution rows, adapter source, token/cache safety notes). This distinguishes it from the many other connect_* and create_* sibling tools. However, the name says 'connect' while the description says 'create', causing slight ambiguity.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for creating a map-tile overlay scaffold, but it does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or similar tools to consider instead. The openWorldHint annotation hints at general usability but is not leveraged in the text.

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