create_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds some useful context: the new map appears under Maps in the Catalog pane and must be opened manually by double-clicking. However, it does not disclose side effects on the current project, behavior on name conflicts, or whether the map becomes active.

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 concise and front-loaded: the purpose comes first, followed by a useful usage note and the parameter list. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states the action, the target project context, and where the result can be found. It falls slightly short on explicit prerequisites and edge-case behavior, but those are minor for this complexity level.

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 for the input schema. It only restates the name parameter and its default, which duplicate the schema's title and default value. No additional meaning is added, such as naming rules, allowed values, or examples.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new map in the current ArcGIS Pro project.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from siblings such as create_layout or get_active_map_name. No ambiguity exists about the tool's core purpose.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The only extra instruction is 'After creation, open it by double-clicking...' which is a post-creation step, not a decision rule for tool selection.

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