map_control_to_requirement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly notes the operation is 'Mutating' and describes the side effect (re-derives requirement coverage). This is strong, though it could mention reversibility or overwrite behavior, which would make it a 5.

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 short paragraphs with no fluff. The first sentence leads with the core purpose and mutation trait; the second gives clear usage guidance and alternatives. Every sentence 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?

Given the output schema exists and the description covers purpose, mutation, side effects, and usage guidance, the description is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool. No critical gaps remain.

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 86%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it does clarify the mapping context and the manual/assertion aspect. No compensation needed due to high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('map') and clearly identifies the resources ('security control', 'compliance-framework requirement'). It explicitly states the operation is manual and one-to-one, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like auto_map_controls and auto_remediate.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('single, deliberate mapping you are asserting by hand') and names alternatives for other scenarios, including auto_map_controls and auto_remediate. This is exactly what usage guidelines should do.

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