map_delete

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true (destructive) and readOnlyHint=false (not readonly). The description adds that authentication is 'handled transparently using Azure Identity' and mentions return type (error details or empty response). This provides some context beyond annotations, but not deeply detailed.

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 succinct (two sentences plus parameter list) and front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words. Could be slightly more structured, but efficient overall.

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 delete operation with two required parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers essential aspects: purpose, parameters, auth handling, and return. Adequate for the tool's complexity.

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 partially compensates by indicating both parameters are UUIDs. However, it does not specify format constraints or expected values beyond the type, leaving gaps in semantic meaning.

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 ('Delete'), the resource ('Map item'), and the required identifiers ('workspace and item ID'). It unambiguously distinguishes from sibling tools like map_create, map_get, etc.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., map_update or map_get). Does not mention prerequisites or scenarios for use.

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