remap_control

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 explains the mechanical nature (non-AI-gated), the validation behavior (rejects invalid IDs), and the persistence of change_reason in version history. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 concise: three sentences with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, no fluff or repetition. The structure places the core definition first, then use guidance, then behavioral constraints.

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 straightforward purpose (remap CO mappings) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it does, when to use, validation rules. It could optionally mention return behavior (e.g., success confirmation), but that is likely in the output schema. The description is complete enough for an AI agent.

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 80% (missing only `server_version` description). The description adds meaning beyond schema: explains co_ids as 'comma-separated list' and 'must include at least one CO', and change_reason as 'min 10 chars' captured in history. The purpose of each parameter is clear in context.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Mechanical, non-AI-gated remap of a control's CO mappings.' It immediately differentiates from sibling tools like `refine_control` and `set_mitigation_groups` by specifying distinct characteristics.

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: 'Use `remap_control` when the operator already knows the correct co_ids and just needs to persist the mapping change.' It provides example scenarios (restoring after stale references) and clarifies that no LLM evaluation runs. Also warns about rejected co_ids (nonexistent/tombstoned).

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