create_mapping

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds that it returns the created mapping including its id, which is useful. It does not disclose potential failure modes or permission requirements, but these are typical for creation tools.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and no unnecessary words. 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 four required parameters, nested fields array, and output schema, the description combined with schema and annotations is complete. It mentions the prerequisite step and return value adequately.

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 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds context by advising to use get_fields first, which relates to the fields parameter. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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 action 'Creates a new field mapping for an entity', providing specific examples (e.g., 'Journal Entry', 'Bill', 'Invoice'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_mapping and delete_mapping by focusing on creation.

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 advises to look up valid target fields with get_fields first, providing a clear prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools for different actions.

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