update-identity-provider-mapper

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

The description is essentially a tautology of the tool name, repeating 'Update an identity provider mapper' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or response behavior. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it adds nothing beyond the verb already present in the name.

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 concise at one sentence, but it is under-specified and essentially restates the tool name. It does not earn its place by adding new information, and its brevity comes across as vacuous rather than efficiently structured.

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?

Despite the schema being complete, the description lacks crucial context such as the requirement to specify a realm, alias, and mapperId, and what the operation entails beyond 'update'. With no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool with 6 parameters, especially one that updates a configuration object. The agent is left to rely entirely on parameter names and descriptions without high-level guidance.

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 schema provides descriptions for all 6 parameters (name, alias, realm, config, mapperId, identityProviderMapper), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter details, but with full schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Update an identity provider mapper' clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (identity provider mapper), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-identity-provider-mapper, list-identity-provider-mappers, and delete-identity-provider-mapper. However, it lacks explicit scope or differentiating details such as the need for realm/alias/mapperId, so it is clear but not exceptionally specific.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no conditions or prerequisites, and no mention of when an update is appropriate. It simply states the action with no contextual direction, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and schema.

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