manage_mapping_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose side effects: validate performs fresh metadata discovery and is "recorded locally," while export writes to a new file, and nothing is activated silently. It omits permission requirements, overwrite/error behavior for the target path, and any rate limits.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then Args and Returns sections that are tight and purposeful. The note about import/rollback being proposals earns its place as a safety clarification; nothing is 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?

An output schema exists, so the brief Returns note suffices, and the description documents all three otherwise-undocumented parameters plus their side effects. It is slightly incomplete on permissions and on differentiation from get_mapping_profile.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates the two action values with semantics, scopes path to "export" as a new .yaml/.yml outside the setup store, and gives format's default and alternatives. It does not state optionality or confirm format is ignored for validate.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb pair and resource: "Validate or export the active mapping profile." It also distinguishes itself from the import/rollback path by naming propose_mapping_changes, though it never clarifies how it differs from the sibling get_mapping_profile.

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?

It explains when each action applies ("validate" for fresh metadata discovery, "export" to write a file) and explicitly routes import/rollback to propose_mapping_changes. It lacks an explicit when-not condition or a contrast with get_mapping_profile, so it stops short of the top band.

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