map_update

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, so the description adds some value by specifying parameter constraints (naming rules, max length). However, it does not elaborate on what 'destructive' entails or any side effects beyond the update.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, auth, parameter docs. No wasted words, though the param list could be integrated more succinctly.

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 update tool with 4 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description covers purpose, auth, and parameter constraints. However, it omits that display_name and description are optional (can be null), and does not mention what the output contains beyond 'updated map details'.

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 compensates by specifying that workspace_id and item_id are UUIDs, and adding constraints for display_name and description (naming rules, max 256 chars). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type definitions.

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 'Update a Map item's display name and description' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like map_create, map_delete, and especially map_update_definition, which updates a different aspect.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like map_update_definition. The description only mentions authentication handling, which is not a usage guideline. Missing context on prerequisites or scenarios.

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