set_accounting_account_mapping

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a configuration action, but does not mention side effects, whether existing mappings are overwritten, required permissions, or any confirmation behavior. The word 'Guide' may also imply documentation rather than an executable action.

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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is so minimal that it lacks detail, preventing a perfect score.

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 it is a configuration/set tool with no output schema, no annotations, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not cover return values, error conditions, or the effect of the operation, making it hard for an agent to fully predict behavior.

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 gives examples for account_number (411, 4431, 706) but leaves account_type completely unexplained and does not clarify the relationship between the two parameters.

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 the tool configures default accounting accounts, with examples like 411 and 706. The verb 'configurer' and resource are present, but it doesn't strongly differentiate from sibling configuration tools such as configure_vat_mode or configure_accounting_export.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or references to other tools. An agent would have to infer the appropriate context.

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