add_map_remote

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of whether the rule applies immediately to live traffic, whether it persists across sessions, or how ttl expires it.

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?

Two tight sentences, the behavioral example first and the path-preservation nuance second. Nothing is padded.

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, open-world rule-creation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, key facts are missing: what a `name` does, what `ttl` governs, and whether the mapping is active immediately. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 trailing-* behavior on `to` is genuinely useful semantics not stated in the schema, and it disambiguates the two example forms. However `ttl` and `name` (undocumented at 60% coverage) get no explanation at all, so the description only partly compensates.

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 concrete action — routing matching requests to another server — with a recognizable example (prod → staging). It never explicitly says it *creates* a mapping rule, and it does not name the sibling add_map_local, which is the main confusion risk.

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 prod→staging and local-dev examples give implied context for when this applies, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no reference to add_map_local as the alternative for local-only mapping.

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