map_player_identity

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full disclosure. It mentions 'audit metadata' but does not disclose side effects such as whether the mapping is destructive, whether existing mappings are overwritten, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.

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?

Single sentence, directly states the core action with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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?

Tool has 4 parameters and an output schema, and the description is minimal. While return values are covered by the output schema, the description lacks context on why manual resolution is needed and what 'audit metadata' entails, making it partially complete for a tool with this complexity.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It references provider ID and Sleeper player, mapping to provider_player_id and sleeper_player_id, but does not explain the 'provider' parameter values, the 'confidence' default/semantics, or how they interact. Minimal value added beyond schema property names.

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 uses the specific verb 'resolve' with a clear resource: 'ambiguous provider ID to a Sleeper player'. The word 'Manually' distinguishes it from sibling sync tools that presumably automate identity mapping.

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 via 'Manually resolve' but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like sync_* tools. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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