create-client-scope-protocol-mapper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It only states 'create' without revealing whether the operation is idempotent, whether it overwrites existing mappers, required permissions, or any consequences. This is a minimal disclosure for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, it does not earn its place by adding valuable information beyond the tool name; it simply rephrases it. The structure is not problematic, but the content is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the protocol mapper concept, the purpose of the 'config' nested object, or any return value or errors. An agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context from documentation or examples.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters, each with a short description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The 'config' object is mentioned in the schema but not elaborated, and the description does not compensate.

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 'Create a protocol mapper for a client scope' restates the tool name in sentence form, providing little additional clarity. It does specify the resource (client scope protocol mapper) but does not distinguish it from the similar create-protocol-mapper tool or explain what a protocol mapper is. The verb and resource are clear, but the description is essentially a tautology of the tool name.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create-protocol-mapper (for clients) or update-client-scope-protocol-mapper. The description does not mention any conditions or exclusions. Without context, the agent cannot determine the appropriate scenario for this tool compared to siblings.

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