Delete a map and its entry in the tree

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it specifies that both files are backed up first, that undo_writes restores them together, that the operation refuses while inbound transfer events exist, and that those events are listed so the caller can decide. This is exactly the kind of pre-conditions and reversibility detail annotations cannot convey.

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?

Three dense sentences front-loaded with the destructive action and its scope, then refusal semantics, then backup/undo. Information-rich with minimal waste, though the final sentence packs backup and undo into one clause that could be split.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and no annotations covering pre-conditions, the description supplies the missing pieces: reversibility via backups/undo_writes, the inbound-transfer refusal, the force override, and the dry-run probe. An agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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%: `force` and `dryRun` are documented in the schema, but `mapId` is not. The description's discussion of force/refusal semantics adds behavioral meaning beyond the terse schema text, partially compensating for the undocumented mapId, though it doesn't state mapId's integer/tree-slot meaning explicitly.

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 (remove/delete) and two concrete resources (`data/MapNNN.json` and its `MapInfos` tree slot), and explicitly positions itself as the inverse of `create_map`, a named sibling. An agent can distinguish it from `clear_events`, `make_map`, or `remove_event` without inspecting schemas.

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?

Describes a real usage context (build scripts tidying prototypes) and the refusal condition with transfer events, plus the `force` escape hatch and the `dryRun` report-without-writing path. It doesn't enumerate when to prefer a sibling like rollback_data, but the operational context is clear.

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