Suggest CRM field mappings

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

Adds meaningful context beyond annotations: required scopes (integrations:write), OAuth scope luca:full, data sensitivity=redacted, and the idempotency-key contract (server generates one if omitted). The idempotency-key guidance is consistent with idempotentHint=false since the key is what makes retries safe, so there is no contradiction.

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-loads the purpose, then layers operation, auth, idempotency, and workspace behavior in short scannable lines. Every block adds operational value, though the raw REST path and scope metadata are somewhat boilerplate.

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 write operation with annotations covering safety flags and an output schema covering returns, the description supplies the missing pieces: auth scope, idempotency handling, and workspace scoping. What remains absent is sequencing relative to the confirm sibling.

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 75%, with schema descriptions already covering workspaceId, workspaceSlug, and idempotencyKey. The description restates the workspace override and idempotency semantics but adds little for the undocumented 'id' path parameter beyond the URL template, matching the baseline 3 for schema-driven parameters.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Suggest CRM field mappings', which is a clear generative action on CRM mapping configuration. It is distinguishable from the closest sibling luca_integrations_crm_mappings_confirm, but the text itself never contrasts with it or with schema/connections siblings.

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 gives operational instructions (idempotency key, workspace override) but no when-to-use guidance. It never says this should precede luca_integrations_crm_mappings_confirm, nor what precondition (a connected CRM) is needed, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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