make_mapped_doc

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states this is a creation tool ('Create a new document'), implying it's a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, error handling, or rate limits. The examples hint at common ERP workflows, adding some context, but critical operational details are missing for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the core purpose, follows with concrete examples that earn their place by illustrating usage, and ends with clear parameter definitions. While slightly longer due to the examples, every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient for understanding.

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 the tool's complexity (document conversion with specific methods), no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, provides usage examples, and defines parameters, covering key aspects. However, for a mutation tool, more behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error cases) would enhance completeness, though the output schema mitigates some 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%, so the description must compensate fully. It explicitly defines both parameters: 'method' as 'Dotted path of the mapping method' with six illustrative examples, and 'source_name' as 'Name/ID of the source document.' This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, clarifying what values are expected and how they relate to the conversion process.

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 tool's purpose: 'Create a new document mapped from an existing one (document conversion).' It specifies the verb 'create' and resource 'new document' with the mapping/conversion mechanism. It distinguishes from siblings like create_document (generic creation) and update_document (modification) by focusing on conversion from an existing source.

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 provides clear context through six concrete examples of mapping methods (e.g., 'Quotation → Sales Order'), which implicitly guides when to use this tool for document conversion workflows. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct comparison to alternatives like create_document or run_method, which could handle similar tasks differently.

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