mapping

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'deterministic' and enumerates actions, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, or output behavior. The action list is already present in the schema, so the added behavioral transparency is limited to the word 'deterministic'.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. There is no wasted wording, and it provides a concise high-level summary.

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?

Despite the rich, nested input schema (MappingRequest, MappingProfile, rules, etc.), the description is minimal and fails to explain important concepts like when to provide a profile versus pairs, what 'context_mode' means, or how actions differ. Even with an output schema, the tool's complexity demands more contextual guidance.

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%, and the description provides no information about context_id, request, profile, pairs, or context_mode. The complex input schema requires explanation, but the description offers none, leaving the agent to interpret cryptic field names like 'request' without guidance.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: resolving, validating, or explaining deterministic design-to-wave mappings. This specific resource ('design-to-wave mappings') distinguishes it from sibling tools like trace, catalog, and wave_manage.

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 object_resolve or trace. It does not mention suitable contexts, exclusions, or preference over sibling tools.

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