input_mapping_add

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It does reveal that changes persist to Config/DefaultInput.ini and gives key format examples, which are useful. However, it does not disclose overwrite behavior, conflict handling, or whether a project reload is required, leaving significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single sentence that packs the core action, file target, and key format examples. There is no waste; every phrase contributes useful information.

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?

For a mutation tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the fundamental action and persistence location, but lacks detail on parameter semantics, duplicate behavior, and effects on existing mappings. The absence of an output schema and annotations adds burden that this description does not fully meet.

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 low (38%), and the description does not compensate. It provides FKey string examples for the key parameter, but does not clarify the meaning of modifier flags (alt, cmd, ctrl, shift), the kind enum (beyond schema), or the scale parameter beyond the schema's terse description. Most parameter semantics remain unexplained.

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 uses a specific verb 'Add' and identifies the resource ('action or axis mapping to project input settings'). It also distinguishes from siblings like input_mapping_remove and input_mapping_info by clearly framing this as the add operation. The mention of the target file adds further specificity.

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 'to project input settings' implies the use case of adding a new mapping, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like input_preset_apply or input_mapping_remove. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the verb.

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