Map Delete

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that deletion is destructive with no undo, that repeating the call may return a not-found error, that the current map cannot be deleted, and that success returns {ok:true,data} while failures return {ok:false,error}. It also explains the upstream response shape and error handling, which is valuable context not present in the annotations.

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 dense but well-organized: it front-loads the core action and constraints, then covers alternatives, error behavior, and return format. Every sentence adds information, though the length is slightly high for a single-parameter tool. Still, the density is justified by the destructive nature and error semantics.

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 single-parameter tool, the description covers all essential context: prerequisites (map_list, map_switch), the current-map restriction, idempotency behavior, return shapes, and error handling. The output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed further. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents map_id with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the critical constraint that map_id must not be the current map, which is not in the schema description. This extra semantic guidance justifies a 4.

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 states a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('campaign map'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from token_delete and map_switch. It also names the sibling map_list for inspection, making the tool's purpose and scope unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance: inspect with map_list first, use map_switch to select another current map before deletion, and use token_delete for single-token removal. It also warns that upstream rejects deletion of the current map with HTTP 400, which is a clear exclusion condition.

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