yaaif_desktop_skill_mapping_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a 'control-plane PUT', implying an idempotent full replacement of worker ids. It also mentions 'before activation', hinting at a governance workflow. However, it does not describe side effects (e.g., removal of unlisted mappings), permission requirements, reversibility, or response behavior. Some useful context is given, but significant gaps remain.

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?

Two sentences with the primary action front-loaded. The optional tracing/evidence guidance is secondary and placed after the core purpose. Minor jargon ('control-plane PUT') could be clearer, but overall it is efficient and not padded.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool confidently. It fails to explain spec_id and spec_version, does not mention what the response contains, and includes a workflow hint ('before activation') without concrete steps or parameter linkage. An agent would likely need to consult external documentation.

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 compensate. It explains the core parameters: worker_ids are the ids to replace, skill_id is the desktop skill, and slot_key is a Scenario slot for optional tracing. However, spec_id and spec_version are completely unexplained, and 'attach evidence/attestation' does not map to any declared parameter. Partial compensation, but not enough for a 5-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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: 'Replace worker ids mapped to a desktop skill (control-plane PUT)'. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like yaaif_desktop_skill_mappings_list (read-only) and yaaif_desktop_skill_mapping_delete (removal). The parenthetical 'control-plane PUT' reinforces the semantics of a full replacement 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as yaaif_skill_map_agents_merge (which suggests additive mapping) or yaaif_desktop_skill_mapping_delete. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it over siblings. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned.

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