save_device_mapping

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and open-world, but the description adds crucial context: it replaces the entire mapping, an empty list deletes all mappings, and confirmed must only be set after user agreement. It also discloses prerequisite discovery of IDs and alias uniqueness.

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 front-loaded, compact, and every sentence adds necessary meaning. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema boilerplate.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema and generic param schema, the description covers all behaviorally relevant points: readback, full replacement, retention rules, empty-list deletion, ID discovery, alias uniqueness, and confirmation timing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and generic row items, the description carries the burden and does so well: it explains that rows contain id, alias, optional group, and optional position, that all mappings to retain must be included, and how confirmed is meant to be used.

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 ("Replace") and resource ("entire device mapping"), and clarifies that this is a full replacement rather than a partial update. It is distinct from every listed sibling, none of which perform mapping replacement.

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?

It gives explicit operational conditions: read the mapping back to the user first, include every mapping to retain, use an empty list to remove all, and set confirmed only after agreement. These are clear when/how constraints rather than vague advice.

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