update_mapping

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

Annotations declare it's not read-only and not destructive, and that it's idempotent. The description adds context: it is a full replacement (PUT, not patch) and returns the updated mapping, matching the annotations without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, no redundant phrases. Front-loaded with the key action and essential instruction to fetch first.

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 complexity (5 required params, nested objects), the description covers what it does, how to use it (fetch first), and what it returns. Output schema exists so return details are not needed.

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 schema already documents parameter meanings well. The description reinforces the 'full replacement' concept but adds no new parameter-specific details.

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 it replaces an existing mapping in full (PUT vs patch), and explicitly instructs to fetch the current mapping with list_mappings first. This distinguishes it from create_mapping and delete_mapping siblings.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: fetch the current mapping first and send the whole desired shape. It implies when to use (update an existing mapping) but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives.

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