map_create_noise

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, implying creation might overwrite or affect existing data, but the description doesn't clarify what gets destroyed or whether it's reversible. It also doesn't mention any side effects or prerequisites. The description adds little beyond the annotations, but it doesn't contradict them. With annotations covering the destructive nature, the description is adequate 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 concise, about two lines, and front-loads the purpose. It uses bilingual text (Chinese/English), which is efficient for multilingual agents. Every sentence adds value—the first defines action, the second lists parameters. No fluff.

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?

Given the tool has 0 required parameters, the schema provides full parameter details, and annotations cover safety, the description is mostly complete for calling the tool. However, it doesn't mention what the function returns (no output schema) or any side effects like material assignment. This is a minor gap for a simple creation tool, so a 3 is reasonable.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description mentions the same parameters (type, size, seed, colors) but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. It restates the noise type options (1,2,3) which are already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool creates a Noise map and lists the configurable parameters (type, size, seed, colors). It is distinct from sibling tools like map_create_checker or map_create_bitmap, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself. The verb 'create' and resource 'Noise map' are specific enough.

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 implies usage for creating noise maps but does not specify when to use this over other map types or when not to use it. There is no mention of alternative map creation tools or context. Guidance is minimal, so agents must infer based on the name, which is acceptable but not explicit.

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