register_type_mappings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a write operation ('register') but does not disclose side effects such as persistence semantics, duplicate handling, prerequisites (e.g., whether projects must be pre-registered), idempotency, or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap 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?

Four sentences each earn their place: purpose, input flexibility, a concrete example, and a clear benefit. It is front-loaded and concise, with no fluff. The structure flows naturally from what to how to why.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover return values, error conditions, and behavioral nuances. It does not mention what the tool returns, whether it overwrites existing mappings, or whether it requires pre-existing projects. For a mutation tool, these gaps make the description incomplete.

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 schema already covers 100% of parameter details, including the ability to pass a single mapping object or array via the mappings parameter description. The tool description adds a clarifying example but no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 begins with a clear verb+object: 'Register one or more type mappings between projects.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like suggest_type_mappings and check_type_mapping by explicitly framing this as the action to record known mappings. The example with StationCreateDto/StationFormSchema makes the purpose concrete.

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 clear context for when to use: 'Then when you change one, you can check what else needs updating.' It also highlights the batch efficiency benefit, implying use when registering multiple mappings. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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