add_input_mapping

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating the mutation target (existing IMC), the operation (add mapping), and the return format ('dict with success status, imc_name, action_name, key, and mapping_index'). It does not cover failure modes or validation side effects, but the provided return contract adds meaningful transparency.

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 with a clear summary, Args section, Returns section, Example, and KB pointer. It is reasonably concise, though the example reuses 'ExampleName' for every argument, which is less informative than using realistic values for at least the key.

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 bare input schema, absent annotations, and no output schema, the description provides enough information to call the tool correctly: parameter meanings, examples, return shape, and a knowledge-base reference. It could be more complete with explicit failure/error behavior and a note on prerequisite creation of the IMC.

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, and it does comprehensively. Each parameter is explained with its role and concrete examples: imc_name ('IMC_Default'), action_name ('IA_Jump'), and key ('SpaceBar'). This goes far beyond the bare schema properties.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Add an input mapping to an existing Input Mapping Context (IMC).' This clearly states what the tool does and the 'existing' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling creation tools like create_input_mapping_context.

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 phrase 'existing Input Mapping Context' implies the IMC must already be created, which offers some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as create_input_mapping_context, create_enhanced_input_action, or inspect_input_mapping_context.

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