create_input_mapping_context

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: the asset is saved immediately, and 'the call succeeds only when it reaches disk', plus the empty-on-creation state. A brief note on failure/duplicate-name behavior would round it out.

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?

Front-loads the core definition, then usage guidance, then a Returns block; every sentence earns its place. Slightly dense but well-organized and free of 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 full annotation coverage and 100% schema coverage, the description supplies the practical workflow (fill after creation, check keys first) and inline return shape ({ context_name, context_path, saved, save_error? }) despite no output schema. Complete enough to invoke correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents context_name, path, asset_path, and package_path. The description adds no parameter meaning (e.g. it never mentions the path/package_path/asset_path aliasing or the default /Game/Input location), so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb (Create) and resource (Enhanced Input mapping context asset, IMC_), and defines what it is ('the container that binds keys to InputActions'). Clearly distinguishable from siblings like add_mapping_to_context or map_input_action, which populate an existing context rather than create one.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use and how: 'Prefer a context per MODE over one key per verb', 'Empty on creation: fill it with map_input_action / add_mapping_to_context', and 'check the keys are free first with find_free_input_key'. Names concrete alternatives and the prerequisite tool.

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