propose_mapping_changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that nothing is activated, only a local proposal file is written, and that a commit step is required. It also enumerates the return fields including expires_at and conflicts, hinting at proposal lifecycle. It does not state permissions or rate limits, but the safety profile (non-destructive dry-run) is made clear.

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-loads the core purpose and the dry-run framing in the first sentence, then covers args and returns. The args and returns sections are dense but structured with labels. Slightly verbose but every section earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be fully described, yet the description still summarizes them helpfully. Combined with the op enumeration, base_version default, and the commit handoff, an agent has enough to invoke and follow up. Permissions and error/conflict semantics are the remaining gap.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partly does: it explains base_version defaults to the active version, and enumerates the full set of allowed 'op' values inside changes (init_tenant, set_field_mapping, rollback_to, etc.). The nested change object structure is still not fully specified (other fields per op remain undocumented), preventing a 5.

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?

States a specific verb (propose) and resource (mapping changes), and explicitly frames it as 'the dry-run' with validation, diff, hashing, and storage. The terminal sentence naming commit_mapping_changes as the counterpart makes the distinction from the commit sibling 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?

Explicitly states when to use this (for proposing) versus commit_mapping_changes (for activation), and gives the exact workflow: 'Commit it with commit_mapping_changes using the returned proposal_id and diff_hash.' Nothing about the propose-then-commit sequence is left to inference.

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