create_input_mapping_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't state whether this creates a new asset, overwrites an existing one, requires the path to exist, or what happens on failure. The example shows a minimal call with only context_name, but the description doesn't explain default behavior for omitted mappings or path.

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 reasonably concise but includes a KB reference and example that add value. However, the structure is a bit scattered: the example appears twice (once as 'Example mappings' and once as 'Example'), and the KB reference is cryptic. It earns its place but could be tighter.

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?

The tool has an output schema and 3 parameters, but the description doesn't explain what the tool returns or how the output should be interpreted. It also doesn't cover important context like whether the path must exist, how mappings relate to existing actions, or what happens with duplicate context names. The KB reference helps but is not self-contained.

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. It explains context_name and mappings with an example, but doesn't clarify the format of the 'path' parameter beyond 'Content browser path', nor does it explain the structure of mapping dicts beyond 'action' and 'key' fields. The example mappings are helpful but incomplete for edge cases.

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 clearly states the tool creates an Input Mapping Context asset for the Enhanced Input system, with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('Input Mapping Context'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_input_mapping and add_input_mapping by focusing on the context asset itself, though it doesn't explicitly 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?

The description provides an example call and a knowledge base reference, which implies usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_input_mapping or add_input_mapping, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an Enhanced Input action to exist first.

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