Map provider resource

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes a state-changing operation but does not disclose idempotency, error behavior, permissions required, or side effects. Minimal transparency beyond the basic action.

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?

One sentence with examples immediately following. No extraneous text. Front-loaded with the core action. Every part earns its place.

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 5 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It lacks return value information, error conditions, and usage context. For a mutating tool with complex resource objects, more detail is needed.

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 description provides concrete examples for the 'resource' object parameter, which goes beyond the schema's generic description. This adds significant meaning for that parameter, though other parameters (project, environment, connectionId) are not elaborated beyond schema comments.

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 action ('bind') and the resources involved ('provider resource to a project environment'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_provider_mapping' and 'list_provider_mappings' by focusing on creation/association. Examples further clarify what 'resource' means.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use 'create_connection' vs 'map_provider_resource'). Does not mention prerequisites or cases where this tool is inappropriate. Context signals show many sibling tools but no usage differentiation.

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