update_map

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the mutation surface (only title and description), the authorization requirement (full write access to the map), and what is deliberately excluded (archiving, style). It does not describe the response or whether a no-op is possible when the same title is supplied.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then scope disambiguation, then constraints and prerequisites — a logical order. The nested parentheticals make it dense but every clause adds information; nothing is filler.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, exclusions, and access requirements adequately. The remaining gap is minor: it never says what the call returns or confirms that supplying only one of title/description is valid.

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 67%, and the description adds meaningful framing by clarifying that map_id refers to the project rather than the apex node. However, it does not explain map_id directly (the one undocumented parameter) nor restate that both title and description are optional with only map_id required.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair (rename a map / change its description) and immediately disambiguates the target: 'the project as a whole — not the apex node', which separates it from update_node. The parenthetical about where the title surfaces (map list, database) further pins down the object being modified.

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?

Gives explicit when-not guidance: archiving and map style are out of scope and must be done in the app, and full write access is a stated prerequisite. It does not name a sibling alternative by name for node-level renaming, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives statement.

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