yaaif_skill_map_agents_merge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden: it discloses the underlying algorithm ('fetch current mappings, union, then bulk replace') and signals low risk via 'safe default'. It does not detail permissions, atomicity, or response shape, but the most important behavior is exposed.

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?

A single informative sentence achieves high density: the operation, the algorithm, and a usage-context qualifier are all present with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is close to sufficient: it specifies the data transformation and the suggested execution context. It omits error cases and return values, but the nested schema plus the explicit merge semantics fill the main gaps.

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 0% and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema's own names. The single `assignments` parameter's nested structure exists in the schema, but the description never explains how to express mappings or what the array items represent beyond 'skill_ids into agents'.

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 a specific operation: 'Merge skill_ids into agents', and then defines merge as 'fetch current mappings, union, then bulk replace'. This distinguishes it from a plain set/replace operation and from siblings like yaaif_skill_map_agents.

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 phrase 'Safe default for plan execution' explicitly situates this tool as the preferred union-style option during plan execution. It does not name an alternative or state when not to use it, but the merge semantics make the intended context clear.

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