update_lifecycle_maps

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, and the description adds context about the map format but does not disclose whether the update replaces existing mappings entirely or merges with them. This is a key behavioral trait for a destructive operation, so the description only partially supplements the annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded: two sentences and a format example with no redundant wording. The purpose is stated first, and the example earns its place by clarifying the non-obvious map structure.

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?

The description covers the parameter format well, but given the destructiveHint annotation and absence of an output schema, it should clarify whether the update is a full replacement or a merge, and ideally what happens to existing mappings. This is a meaningful gap for an agent deciding how to invoke the tool safely.

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 100%, but the schema descriptions are vague ('Status mappings between lifecycles'). The tool description adds significant meaning by giving the exact JSON format and explaining what maps represent, greatly clarifying the expected parameter structure.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and a specific resource ('status mappings between this lifecycle and other lifecycles'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling update_lifecycle, which concerns lifecycle settings generally. It unambiguously states what the tool does.

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 by explaining that maps define how statuses translate when tickets move between queues with different lifecycles. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the usage context is evident.

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