Resolve User Rider

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for what is clearly a mutation that finalizes state. It says nothing about the effect on downstream calculation, whether re-resolution is allowed or destructive, why a 'pin' credential is required, or how MAPPED vs CUSTOM vs IGNORED differ in consequences. The only added behavior is that rule_config_override applies to POLICY_CERTIFICATE-sourced riders.

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 first sentence is front-loaded and waste-free. The second is dense and awkwardly punctuated, embedding a raw JSON example mid-sentence, and it explains the least-used optional parameter while ignoring the required ones.

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?

For an 8-parameter mutation with zero annotation coverage and no schema descriptions, the description is far too thin; an output schema exists so return values needn't be covered, but permissions, reversibility, and the role of most parameters are missing.

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 0% across 8 parameters, and the description explains only rule_config_override (with an example) plus, implicitly, the mapping_status enum. Six parameters — pin, user_id, rider_id, mapped_rule_id, coverage_amount, custom_rule_config — are undocumented in both schema and description, including the critical distinction between custom_rule_config and rule_config_override.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource (confirm the mapping of an unmapped rider) and enumerates the three resulting statuses (MAPPED, CUSTOM, IGNORED). The scoping word '미매핑' (unmapped) partially separates it from sibling update_user_rider, though the distinction is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implicitly scoped: the tool is for riders that are not yet mapped. There is no explicit guidance on when to call it versus update_user_rider, no prerequisites (e.g. that the rider must already exist for the user), and no exclusions such as re-resolving an already mapped rider.

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