manage_keyword_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions actions like add/remove/reset implying mutation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as reversibility, destructive nature, or permission requirements. More detail is needed for safe invocation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and context, with an illustrative example. No redundant information; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (4 params, nested objects, enums, conditional requirements), the description covers the workflow and provides examples. No output schema, but the expected return is implied. It is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 100%, but the description adds value by providing an example of the mappings format and clarifying conditional requirements (e.g., mappings required when action=add). This enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 it manages keyword-to-table-name mappings, with a specific verb 'manage' and resource. It provides an example and explains its role in improving smart_query accuracy, distinguishing it from sibling tools like manage_few_shot_examples.

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 advises to use after inspecting schema with list_tables, and explains the benefit (improve smart_query matching). While it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, it gives clear context and purpose.

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