post_w_company_agent_discoverysettings_mapping

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the mutation ('Create') and the endpoint. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, idempotency, or what happens to existing mappings, so an agent cannot anticipate the operational impact of calling it.

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 two concise sentences with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence contributes either semantic intent or request-shaping guidance, though the endpoint re-statement is mildly redundant with the tool name.

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 POST creation tool with four opaque generic parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it does not clarify what a 'discoverysettings mapping' is, what the request payload should contain, or which route IDs are needed. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but the description still leaves an agent unable to construct a correct request.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by explaining the role of each generic container: path_params hold route IDs, query holds filters/pagination, headers hold request headers, and body holds the payload. However, it does not specify which IDs, filters, or payload fields are required, leaving the agent to guess the concrete shape.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Create agent discoverysetting mapping,' so an agent can infer this is a write operation for the discovery-settings mapping collection. It also states the exact endpoint, which distinguishes it from the sibling get/patch/delete operations on the same resource, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when this tool should be used versus its siblings (e.g., when a new mapping is needed vs. updating an existing one via patch_w_company_agent_discoverysettings_mapping). The description only explains how to structure the HTTP request, not under what conditions the tool is appropriate.

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