Add a manual weighted mapping from one cue to another, specifying the association strength (0-1). Use it to explicitly link related cues within a project.
Add a manual weighted mapping from one cue to another.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | ||
| from | Yes | ||
| weight | No | Association weight from 0 to 1. Default is 1. | |
| project | No | Optional project ID. Defaults to the repository-scoped project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states that a mapping is added, but not whether re-adding an existing pair overwrites, errors, or merges, nor any side effects on recall, classification, or project state.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. 'Manual' and 'weighted' carry semantic load that helps distinguish this from related alias operations.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain duplicate handling, return values, or how the mapping interacts with project scoping beyond what the schema already specifies.
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?
The schema leaves 'from' and 'to' undocumented except for minLength, and the description fills that gap by clarifying they are 'one cue to another'. This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema, while 'weight' and 'project' already have schema descriptions.
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 a specific verb 'Add' and resource 'manual weighted mapping from one cue to another'. This distinguishes it from siblings like cuemap_alias_merge (merge vs add) and cuemap_intent_classify (manual vs automatic).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus cuemap_alias_merge, cuemap_alias_list, or cuemap_add. The word 'manual' implies a contrast with automatic processes, but no alternative or exclusion conditions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.