update_client_scope_protocol_mapper

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the obvious update operation. With no annotations, it fails to clarify idempotency, partial update behavior, or side effects.

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, which is concise but lacks detail. It could be more informative without being overly long.

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 the complexity (4 required params, nested object mapper_data, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It omits information about update behavior, required fields, and error conditions.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, parameter descriptions are minimal (e.g., 'Protocol mapper representation' for mapper_data). They do not clarify required fields or structure, leaving ambiguity about what to send.

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 'Update a protocol mapper for a client scope' clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (protocol mapper for a client scope), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, or get.

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 versus alternatives like create_client_scope_protocol_mapper or get_client_scope_protocol_mapper. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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