input_mapping_remove

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 reveals a key behavioral trait: omitting 'key' removes every key bound to the name, which prevents accidental full-scale removal. This goes beyond the basic 'remove' action and gives the agent important information about the tool's default behavior.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a critical nuance without any fluff. Every word contributes to understanding, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential behavior: what it removes, the two kinds of mappings, and the optional key behavior. It does not mention error handling or return values, but for this level of complexity, the coverage is sufficient and complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'kind' parameter indirectly via 'action or axis', clarifies that 'key' is optional and its omission triggers bulk removal, and implies 'name' is the mapping identifier. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema fields, though 'name' is not explicitly elaborated.

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's function with a specific verb ('Remove') and identifies the resource ('action or axis mappings'). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'input_mapping_add' (which adds) and 'input_mapping_info' (which queries) by focusing on removal. The note about omitting 'key' further clarifies scope.

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 clear operational guidance: omit 'key' to remove all bindings, implying that providing a key removes only that specific binding. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the usage context (removing mappings) is unambiguous and follows naturally from the tool's name and purpose.

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