Confirm CRM field mappings

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful context beyond them — required OAuth scope (luca:full, integrations:write), data sensitivity redacted, and the Idempotency-Key retry contract — but it never explains the destructive semantics the annotation flags, e.g. whether confirming replaces existing mappings.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation, then scopes, idempotency, and workspace override in short declarative sentences. It is a metadata block rather than prose, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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 a mutating PUT with nested body objects, the description supplies auth scopes, sensitivity, idempotency behavior, and workspace targeting, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The missing piece is the effect on existing mappings, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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 description coverage is 60%, and the description only restates what the schema already documents (workspaceId, workspaceSlug, idempotencyKey auto-generation). The core payload — the mappings array with its direction enum, transform object, and dangerous flag — receives no semantic explanation in the description.

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 names a specific action and resource ('Confirm CRM field mappings') and backs it with the underlying operation (PUT /api/integrations/crm/connections/{id}/mappings), so an agent knows exactly what call is made. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling luca_integrations_crm_mappings_suggest, which an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description covers mechanics (idempotency key, workspace override) but never explains when confirming is appropriate versus suggesting mappings or re-listing the connection schema.

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