ipt_add_mapping

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states it writes to the IPT, automaps columns, and refuses duplicate mappings unless allowDuplicate is set, including the consequence of multiplying published records. This is good transparency for a mutation tool, though it doesn't cover auth requirements or return 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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action, followed by key behavioral notes. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and parameter semantics. It does not mention return values or error handling, but for a mapping operation this is likely adequate. It could be more complete by explicitly distinguishing from ipt_set_mapping, but overall it's solid.

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 only 25% (only shortname described). The description adds meaning to source and rowType by placing them in the mapping context, and explains allowDuplicate's role. This compensates for the sparse schema, leaving shortname covered by its pattern.

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: mapping a source to an extension, with examples of extension types. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ipt_delete_mapping, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with ipt_set_mapping, which might be a related operation.

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 implies when to use it (to map a source) and provides a key condition (refuses duplicates unless allowDuplicate). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, leaving some usage context implicit.

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