show_on_map

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false with idempotentHint=true, and the description is consistent with a side-effecting-but-idempotent call: pin=true pins the place for the page, which explains the non-read-only hint. It also adds real behavioral context the annotations cannot convey, e.g. that a wrong token still opens the right place, that resource: centres on every node with overlays, and that the public map shows an unbuilt vanilla world.

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 key distinction (local vs public map) is front-loaded in the first clause, and the follow-up sentences cover the token grammar and pinning in a compact way. The parenthetical asides and line breaks make it denser than ideal, but no sentence is wasted.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains what the links are but not the shape of the response, and several parameters (save, zoom, world) go unmentioned. The core invocation path via 'at' is well covered, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 63%, so the description must add some value and it does for 'at' (token grammar), 'pin' (pins as pin:N), and 'mode' (base map). However save, zoom, world, and as_of are left to the schema, and 'world' in particular is undocumented in both places despite being ambiguous next to the local/public map distinction. Baseline 3 for partial coverage is appropriate.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: it produces map links centred on a place, and immediately distinguishes the two link targets (this project's map, which draws your save, versus the public vanilla map). That is far more specific than a name restatement. It does not explicitly name a sibling such as factory_map or describe_location to differentiate itself, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent can infer this is the tool for 'show me this thing on a map', and the resource:<name> and pin=true clauses hint at intended scenarios. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no comparison against the many sibling tools that also deal with locations (describe_location, whereami, factory_map).

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