import_mapping

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 states the mutation purpose ('Save column mapping') and that it confirms or adjusts mappings before execution, giving a sense of persistence. However, it doesn't disclose whether this is a write operation with side effects, whether it can be called multiple times (overwriting previous mappings), or any error/validation behavior.

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?

Two concise sentences that state purpose and then usage timing. Efficient and front-loaded with the core action ('Save column mapping'). Loses one point for not being maximally compact—the second sentence could potentially be merged, but it earns its place by adding workflow context.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this is adequate but not complete. It explains the tool's role in the workflow and what it does, but omits behavioral details like idempotency (whether calling it repeatedly with different mappings overwrites), validation rules on columnMapping, and response/error expectations. It's a functional description that gets the job done without going beyond the minimum.

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 100%, so all 3 parameters (id, companyId, columnMapping) have descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself does not add parameter detail, but the schema already documents the structure and the 'Storno fields' reference in the description gives semantic grounding for columnMapping's values. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb+resource: 'Save column mapping for an import job' and specifies it maps CSV columns to Storno fields. It distinguishes from siblings by being part of the import workflow (import_mapping vs import_preview, import_execute), though it doesn't explicitly name them as alternatives.

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 usage context: 'Call after reviewing the preview to confirm or adjust mappings before executing.' This situates the tool in the import workflow sequence, telling the agent when in the process it should be called, though it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives like import_preview or import_execute.

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