Remap Control

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. It does so well by noting that no LLM evaluation runs, that the operation is purely mechanical, and that non-existent or tombstoned target co_ids are rejected. It does not discuss permissions, irreversibility, or whether existing mappings are replaced, but the core behavioral constraints are clearly disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the exact purpose, the next sentences add sibling differentiation and usage context, and the final sentence documents validation behavior. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, and key rejection behavior. An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be explained. The only small gap is the unexplained server_version parameter and the lack of explicit statement about whether the remap replaces all existing CO mappings or merges with them, but the overall context is strong.

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 80%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds extra meaning for co_ids by clarifying that targets must be live COs and that tombstoned/nonexistent IDs are rejected, which goes beyond the schema's 'must include at least one CO'. The only notable gap is server_version, which remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Mechanical, non-AI-gated remap of a control's CO mappings.' It clearly names sibling tools it is distinct from (refine_control, set_mitigation_groups), eliminating ambiguity about what this tool does versus similar ones.

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 this tool: when the operator already knows the correct co_ids and needs to persist a mapping change. It also provides a concrete example scenario (restoring stale/orphaned CO references) and distinguishes it from AI-gated alternatives. This leaves no doubt about selection.

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