create_input_mapping_context

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing side effects and preconditions. It does not mention if the asset is auto-saved, if existing assets are overwritten, or if permissions are required. The only behavioral hint is the requirement for a full content 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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the action and detailing the parameters.

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 adequate for a simple creation tool with only two parameters and an output schema (not detailed). However, given the rich ecosystem of input-related sibling tools, it could mention that the context is created in the content browser or that duplicates are handled.

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 adds value beyond the schema by clarifying asset_path as a full content path with an example, and describing description as an optional localized string. The schema parameters are plain strings, so this contextual information is helpful, even though schema coverage is 0%.

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 a new UInputMappingContext asset, with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('UInputMappingContext asset'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_key_mapping' or 'get_input_mapping_context' which operate on existing contexts.

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 versus alternatives. The description does not indicate prerequisites, when to create vs. use existing contexts, or how this fits into the input system workflow.

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