propose_canonical_mapping

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

Annotations establish this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so the safety bar is partly met. The description adds real value beyond that: deterministic scoring, routing of uncertain/PII-bearing/metric-bearing/conflicting cases to human review instead of guessing, and halting at the mapping-review gate.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by two focused clauses on scoring behavior and the stopping point. Slightly padded by line-break formatting, but every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the action, its determinism policy, and its terminal gate. The remaining gap is the run_id contract and any prerequisite that the run be profiled first, which is only hinted at.

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 0% and the single run_id parameter has no schema description, so the description must carry the burden. 'For a profiled run' adds a useful constraint (the run must already be profiled), but format, source, or expected value of run_id is never explained.

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?

States specific verbs (infer, propose) and resources (entities, joins, canonical mappings) tied to a profiled run. The 'stops at the mapping-review gate' clause distinguishes it from the downstream submit_mapping_review, though that routing is implied rather than named as a sibling.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool operates on a profiled run and hands off at the mapping-review gate, so the agent can infer it precedes submit_mapping_review. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative, leaving pipeline positioning to inference.

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