Map Create

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

Annotations already flag non-readonly and non-idempotent behavior, and the description reinforces this by stating each accepted call creates another map. It adds meaningful behavioral detail not in annotations: empty tokens/annotations, no broadcast receipt, upstream asset access checks, URL normalization, and specific success/error return shapes. This is exactly the kind of supplementary transparency expected.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: role restriction, sibling routing, creation semantics, retry caution, return envelope, and error behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps related details grouped, though the error-handling section is slightly redundant with the trailing return-format note.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no ambiguity about its output schema, the description leaves little uncovered: it explains who may use it, how it relates to sibling tools, what side effects occur, how failures manifest, and what the response looks like. There is no missing information an agent would need to invoke it 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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small amount of parameter-relevant context (e.g., 'existing image assets', upstream checks on image access), but it does not substantially extend the schema's already-detailed parameter explanations. This is appropriate and not a deficiency.

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 action and resource ('Create a campaign map using existing image assets (DM only)'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting that creation does not switch the current map, unlike map_switch. It also clarifies it is not an uploaded image, leaving no ambiguity about what tool to pick.

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 gives explicit usage context: DM-only, use map_list to inspect and map_switch to activate, and creation is not activation. It also warns against blind retries after uncertain failures, which is valuable operational guidance an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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