set_rack_macro_mapping_edge

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: it 'rechecks the full rack snapshot and reads back the result' and warns that 'reversed ranges are possible.' That is useful operational detail the annotations do not provide.

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 tight clauses with the main action front-loaded and no filler. The constraint about the single nonquantized mapping is dense but relevant, not 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 9-parameter, state-versioned planning/mutation tool with no output schema, the description conveys the core action and revalidation behavior but omits how the plan/confirm two-step resolves and what the read-back guarantees. The schema covers most parameter detail, so it is adequate but has gaps.

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 89%, so parameters are largely documented in the schema. The description only adds that the endpoint value is 'in the target parameter's native range,' which mostly restates the 'value' schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Plan or change one native min or max endpoint of a rack macro'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like map_rack_macro_to_parameter or adjust_rack_macro_count. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling to disambiguate, but the endpoint-editing scope is understandable.

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 opening 'Plan or change' implies a dry-run-then-apply workflow, and the schema carries the dryRun/confirmationToken mechanics, but the description offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or prerequisites. 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.