create-identity-provider-mapper

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states a creation action, but does not reveal side effects, required permissions, what happens if the mapper exists, whether the operation is idempotent, or what the 'config' object should contain. This is insufficient for a mutating 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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. It is appropriately sized, though it could be expanded with a second sentence to offer practical guidance without losing 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?

The description lacks essential context for a create operation. It does not reference the list-identity-provider-mapper-types sibling for valid mapper types, does not explain the config object structure, and provides no information about the response or error conditions. With no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin to fully support an agent.

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 100%, so the schema documents all parameters adequately. The description adds only a small semantic hint ('external user mapping') but does not elaborate on the 'config' object or the possible values for 'identityProviderMapper'. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the 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 uses a clear verb ('Create') and specific resource ('mapper for identity provider'), with a parenthetical explaining it's for external user mapping. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like update-identity-provider-mapper and delete-identity-provider-mapper, though it could be slightly more explicit that it creates a new mapper.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of the relationship to list-identity-provider-mapper-types, which would be useful for selecting the correct mapper type, nor any prerequisites like needing an existing identity provider alias.

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