remove_input_trigger

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds important behavioral context beyond them: it saves the context, succeeds only when the context reaches disk, warns about index shifting after removal, and documents the return fields including saved/save_error. This is exactly the kind of operational detail an agent needs 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 purpose is front-loaded, followed by a concise example, a save/disk-success condition, index guidance, and a return shape. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted text.

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 destructive removal tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, required indices, index-acquisition prerequisite, ordering hazard, disk-save success condition, and the return payload. Combined with the annotations, it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds meaningful parameter context: where to obtain the indices (list_input_triggers) and the critical fact that they shift after a removal, so the agent should work from the highest down. It does not add further per-parameter semantics beyond that.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete one trigger'), the exact resource ('from a key mapping in an Enhanced Input mapping context'), and the keying parameters. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like remove_input_modifier, remove_mapping_from_context, and add_input_trigger.

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?

It gives clear procedural guidance: get indices from list_input_triggers, and work from the highest index down because indices shift after removal. It provides a useful example ('dropping a Hold') but does not explicitly name when to choose this tool over the related remove_input_modifier or remove_mapping_from_context tools.

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