schema_confirm_mapping

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

Annotations are minimal (all hints false), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the unlocking side-effect, the preview dry-run behavior, the return of a sample row, the overrides mechanism, and the pitfall of name-matching columns holding wrong data. This goes far beyond annotations and is extremely transparent.

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 dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then covers overrides and preview with clear structure. It is efficient with no fluff, but it is lengthy due to the rich detail. It earns a high score for focus, though a slight reorganization could improve scannability.

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?

For a tool with a consequential side-effect and a potentially confusing mapping scenario, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, workflow, parameter semantics, side-effects, and a concrete example of failure it guards against. There is no output schema, but the description sufficiently describes the sample output. Nothing essential is missing.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does: 'overrides' is explained with concrete examples (e.g., {"source": "origin_ref"} and {"tags": null} for unmapped), and 'preview' behavior is fully specified with default and effect. 'app_id' and 'table' are self-evident from names. The description compensates fully for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states a specific verb ('confirm') and resource ('table's schema mapping'), immediately clarifies the consequence (unlocking write tools), and names concrete affected tools. It also distinguishes itself from knowledge_write by explaining the gating. This is specific and distinguishable from any sibling.

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?

It provides clear context: when to use preview (dry-run) vs confirm (default), and explicitly advises reviewing the sample first. It also notes the act is more consequential than a single write, implying caution. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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