remember_mapping

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly fails it. It does not say whether writes are idempotent, whether an existing mapping is overwritten, what storage location or permissions apply, or what the response contains; 'private asset' is the only behavioral detail offered.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence, which is efficient, but the closing 'forming a switching-cost moat' clause is marketing filler that consumes space without helping invocation. The core statement is tight; the tail is waste.

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, no output schema, and a nested object parameter at 0% coverage, the description leaves critical gaps. It states the intent but omits preconditions, overwrite semantics, storage details, and the shape of the nested target, which the schema does not supply either.

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% across four parameters, including a nested, untyped 'target' object. The description adds no information about any parameter's format, expected structure, or the relationship between figmaComponentKey, figmaName, and target, so an agent cannot construct a valid 'target' payload.

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 sentence names a specific verb and resource: persisting a Figma->local-component mapping. The scope ('user-confirmed', 'private asset') helps separate it from siblings like save_component or import_mappings, though the trailing 'switching-cost moat' clause is business framing rather than functional description.

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?

'User-confirmed' hints at a precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of alternatives such as save_component or import_mappings, and no indication of when this should be avoided. The agent must infer the workflow position entirely.

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