propose_field_mapping

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'Scan source and target schema.' It does not disclose if this is a read-only operation, whether it modifies state, what permissions are needed, or how long it might take. The output schema exists but the description doesn't hint at what it returns.

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 sentence of 8 words, which is very concise. However, it is too minimal; it sacrifices clarity and completeness for brevity. Still, it avoids unnecessary words.

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 that there is an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values, but it still lacks context on tool behavior, prerequisites, and how to use parameters. The tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so more detail in the description is warranted.

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%, meaning the description adds no parameter details. The description does not explain the meaning of 'file_path,' 'target_source,' 'scope,' or 'mapping_overrides.' The schema provides some hints (e.g., 'scope' defaults to 'workbook'), but the description fails to clarify how these parameters affect the mapping proposal.

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 verb 'Scan' and the resource 'source and target schema' to 'propose a field mapping.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'inspect_target_schema' and 'migrate_twb_guided' by focusing on proposing a mapping rather than just inspecting or executing migration.

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 like 'inspect_target_schema' or 'migrate_twb_guided.' There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., schema must be available), nor any exclusion criteria (e.g., when not to use).

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