update_client_protocol_mapper

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'update a protocol mapper'. It fails to mention idempotency, required permissions, whether the update is partial or full replacement, or any side effects. The minimal description does not meet the burden for a mutation 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?

The description is a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and concise. However, it could be slightly more structured by adding a sentence about constraints or effects.

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 having 4 required parameters and no output schema, the description provides no context beyond the headline. It does not explain the effect of the update, error conditions, or integration with the Keycloak protocol mapper lifecycle. The description is incomplete for a nontrivial mutation tool.

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 input schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. According to guidelines, with high coverage, baseline is 3.

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 'Update' and the resource 'protocol mapper for a client', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_client_scope_protocol_mapper', which handle similar updates.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring an existing protocol mapper, or when to choose update vs create/delete. The description is too minimal to direct correct usage.

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