map_new

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnly=false; the description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact, that the operation is refused when there are unsaved changes. It does not disclose what state is destroyed, whether creation is atomic, or how refusal surfaces to the caller, which matters for a destructive mutation.

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?

Two very short clauses with the core action front-loaded and the constraint immediately after; no wasted words. The terseness crosses into opacity in places ('bottom half solid'), but structure itself is sound.

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 destructive, 4-required-parameter mutation with no output schema and zero schema documentation, the description is far too thin: concurrency semantics, epoch meaning, and refusal behavior are unaddressed. The presence of operation_status among siblings also hints at an async pattern the description never mentions.

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 carries the full burden, yet it only restates the scale range already encoded as min/max in the schema. The three most semantically loaded parameters (request_id, map_epoch, expected_revision — apparently an optimistic-concurrency token) are left completely unexplained.

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 specific verb and resource ('Create a native map'), which separates it from open/save_as siblings. The parenthetical '(bottom half solid)' and 'native map' are unexplained jargon, so an agent gets the gist but not a precise picture of the artifact created.

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?

'Refuses unsaved changes' implies a precondition an agent must satisfy before calling, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never names the alternative path (e.g., save first via a sibling) or states what to do when the call is refused, leaving the agent to infer the workaround.

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