manage_input

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

Annotations already mark the tool as mutable (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Create' and 'Add', failing to disclose that actions like remove_mapping or disable_input_action can delete or disable bindings. It also omits any side effects or permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loading the primary purpose. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing important scope details, so it is concise but not fully informative.

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 10 parameters and an action enum with 10 distinct operations, a two-sentence description is inadequate. It only covers creation and adding bindings, omitting removal, disabling, enabling, retrieving info, and the critical action discriminator. With no output schema, the description must explain the breadth of the tool, and it fails.

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 70%, with descriptions for most parameters. The description adds a bit of meaning by connecting 'key/gamepad bindings' to key and triggerType/modifierType, but does not clarify valid values for triggerType or modifierType (which lack schema descriptions). Overall, schema carries most semantic weight, with modest addition from the description.

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 says 'Create Input Actions and Mapping Contexts' but the schema's action enum reveals the tool also removes mappings, disables actions, sets triggers/modifiers, and retrieves info. The verb 'Create' inaccurately narrows the scope and could mislead the agent into thinking only creation is supported.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like manage_character or system_control. The description doesn't mention exclusions or context where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name alone.

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