map_rack_macro_to_parameter

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that: snapshot re-checking at the native boundary and reading back the observed mapping. It still omits permission requirements, reversibility, and what gets mutated on commit.

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?

Three compact sentences that front-load the operation and the read-back behavior. Some phrasing ('at the native boundary') is jargon-dense, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

For a nine-parameter, two-phase plan/commit tool with no output schema, the description is only partially complete: it hints at the plan-vs-create flow and read-back but never lays out the required sequencing of dryRun, planHash, and confirmationToken. It says enough to attempt the call but not enough to execute the protocol confidently.

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 fully documents all nine parameters and the baseline is 3. The description contributes only 'exact descendant device parameter' and 'default mapping range' and does not explain the planHash/confirmationToken/expectedStateVersion interplay beyond what the schema already says.

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 ('map') and resource ('rack macro to an exact descendant device parameter'), plus the plan-or-create duality. It is clear in isolation, but it never names or contrasts with close siblings like set_rack_macro_mapping_edge, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

'Plan or create' plus the dryRun flag implies a two-phase workflow, and 'Live chooses the default mapping range; inspect the result' gives a hint about defaults. However, it never states when to prefer this over set_rack_macro_mapping_edge or other macro tools, so usage is only implied.

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