add_remote_path_mapping

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Add' communicates that this is a mutating operation, but it does not disclose duplicate behavior, whether existing mappings are overwritten, validation requirements, or any side effects. This is a minimal disclosure for a write operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action, resource, and scope.

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 simple three-parameter create operation with full schema coverage, the description is adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it could usefully mention duplicate behavior or what the response indicates, so it is not fully complete.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters clearly. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, placing it at the baseline of 3.

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 ('Add') with a specific resource ('remote path mapping') and adds the context 'for a download client host.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling operations list_remote_path_mappings and delete_remote_path_mapping.

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 operation type is implied by the word 'Add' and the resource name, and the sibling set includes only list/delete variants, so selection is fairly obvious. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or conditions like duplicate handling.

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