map_create_gradient_ramp

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

The description discloses the core effect (creates a Gradient Ramp map), which is the primary behavior an agent needs to know. Annotations already indicate non-readOnly and destructive, so the description does not need to restate that, but it also does not explain why the tool is flagged destructive or what side effects may occur (e.g., replacing an existing map). This is acceptable but not rich.

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 a two-line bilingual statement that is direct and front-loaded with the action and resource. It provides the key comparative advantage without any 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 zero-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is created, what type of map it is, and why it may be preferred over a plain gradient. The only missing context is clarification of the destructive hint, but this does not prevent an agent from invoking the tool correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema shows an empty properties object, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to compensate for any schema coverage gap; the baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.

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 a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Gradient Ramp map'), and explicitly distinguishes it from a 'plain gradient' with concrete differentiators (multiple flags, types). This makes it easy for an agent to tell it apart from sibling map_create_gradient.

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?

The description says the Gradient Ramp is 'more flexible than a plain gradient' and gives the differentiators (multiple flags, types), which implies when to choose this tool over map_create_gradient. It does not explicitly name the sibling or state when not to use it, but the comparative context is clear.

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