add_mapping_trigger

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation (adding a trigger) but does not mention side effects, permission requirements, error conditions (e.g., invalid mapping_index), or reversibility. This is minimal transparency.

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 very concise: one sentence plus a list of args. No redundant information, and the purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence is necessary.

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 description is fairly complete given the existence of an output schema and the tool's straightforward nature. It explains all parameters clearly, but could mention error scenarios or dependencies (e.g., the IMC must already exist).

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 description explains each parameter with context and an example (e.g., trigger_type: 'InputTriggerPressed'). Although schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well, though the 'properties' parameter remains somewhat vague.

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 action: 'Add a trigger to a specific mapping in an Input Mapping Context.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_mapping_trigger and add_key_mapping, making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage by listing required parameters but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., add_key_mapping). No context about prerequisites or scenarios is given.

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