unregister_input_key_mapping

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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: it clarifies that the row is not deleted, that only the player override is cleared, that this is a runtime operation, and that failure surfaces with reasons in failure_tags. Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true; the description is consistent with that and enriches it. Minor tension exists between "clears the override" and idempotentHint=false, but it is not a contradiction.

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 purpose, then the inverse/parameter-location detail, then the failure mode, then the return shape. Every sentence carries information; it is dense but not padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully supplies the return shape { applied, mapping_name, slot, failure_tags }, covers the required parameters, and explains the failure path. Reasonably complete for a runtime reset tool, though it could say more about what the failure_tags values mean.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning by explaining how the mapping is located (name + slot combined) and that new_key is not required. This clarifies the roles of the required and optional parameters beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource ("Resets a player input mapping back to its default key") and names the underlying engine API. It explicitly positions itself against the sibling register_input_key_mapping as its inverse, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 inverse relationship to register_input_key_mapping gives clear selection context, and the runtime scoping is stated. Boundary conditions are also noted (does not need new_key, does not delete the row), though it stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' rule.

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