create_input_mapping

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that a mapping is created in project settings, but it does not disclose whether existing mappings are overwritten, whether this is destructive or reversible, or what happens on duplicate action/key pairs.

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 well-structured: purpose sentence, Args block, KB pointer, and example. It stays focused and front-loads the main purpose without 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?

It is adequate for a simple create tool: parameters are documented, the scope is stated, and a KB link is provided while an output schema covers the return value. It is incomplete in usage differentiation and behavioral side effects, and the example is misleading.

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 0%, so the parameter descriptions are essential; the description compensates by explaining action_name, giving concrete key examples, and defining input_type as 'Action' vs 'Axis'. The example undercuts this slightly by using key='ExampleName', which is not a real key binding.

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 opening sentence names a specific operation and target: 'Create an input mapping in the project settings (legacy input system).' The 'legacy input system' qualifier helps distinguish it from enhanced-input siblings, though it does not name those alternatives.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The 'legacy input system' label implies a context, but the description never tells the agent to prefer create_input_mapping_context/add_input_mapping for enhanced input or how to choose among the many input-related siblings.

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