generate_mapping

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the tool is a mutation. The description adds that it 'Creates the mapping file' and 'Returns a preview and artifact URI,' which provides useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 description is two sentences long, front-loads the primary action, and contains no redundant information. Every word serves a purpose.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not elaborate on return values. It covers the core action, preview, and artifact URI. With 0 required parameters and clear constraints, it is sufficiently complete for this tool.

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?

All three parameters are documented in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Therefore, the baseline of 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 clearly states it generates a CumulusCI mapping.yml file from a Snowfakery recipe, with a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('mapping.yml file'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_recipe, run_recipe, or validate_recipe, which perform different actions.

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 implies usage context ('needed to load Snowfakery-generated data into Salesforce') but does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use this tool compared to alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or fallback options.

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