get_dp_mapping_proposal

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that the operation is a simulation (non-destructive), enumerates the outcome states ('Ok', 'Ambiguous', 'NotFound'), and warns that CloseName fuzzy matching should be used with caution. It does not describe the proposal's structure or side effects, but the output schema covers return values.

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 purpose and outcome states are front-loaded, and the strategy list is presented as a clean bulleted sequence with a recommended default at the end. A few phrases are verbose but nearly 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?

The output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, and behavior is reasonably well covered. However, given the 5-parameter schema at 0% coverage and no annotations, the description leaves too many parameters and the invocation context undefined to be 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It richly documents the 'strategies' parameter with valid values and a recommended default, but leaves webi_doc_id, dp_id, target_datasource_id, and resolve_names entirely unexplained, so compensation is only partial.

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 states a specific verb and resource: generates/evaluates a Change Data Source mapping proposal and simulates repointing a Web Intelligence query. This clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_dp_details. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with change_dp_datasource, which is the closest 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 through the context of a mapping proposal before a data-source change, and the description gives a recommended default strategy set. It never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as change_dp_datasource, nor any preconditions or exclusions.

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