mapping_create

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

The description accurately states that the tool creates a mapping and returns it with its id. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't mention anything beyond creation, but there is no contradiction or misleading information.

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 purpose and example, then prerequisite and return value. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words.

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 has 4 required params and no output schema, the description covers the main points: creation, prerequisite, and return. It could mention that entityName must come from entities_list, but the overall completeness is high.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context about the entity examples and the mutual exclusivity of sourceFieldTitle and fixedValue, which is not in the schema. This provides meaningful guidance beyond the schema.

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 verb 'creates', the resource 'field mapping', and the scope 'for an entity' with concrete examples like 'Journal Entry'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mapping_delete, mapping_update, etc.

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?

Provides a clear prerequisite ('Look up valid target fields with fields_get first') and mentions the return value. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the context is sufficient for typical use.

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