remove_key_mapping

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

No annotations provided. Description only states the action (remove) without detailing side effects, permissions, or whether changes are persistent. It does not disclose that it modifies the IMC asset or any potential destructive nature beyond the act of removal.

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 concise with two sentences and a bulleted list of args. No unnecessary words or redundancy. Structure is clear and front-loaded.

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 four parameters and no schema descriptions, the description adequately explains the two removal methods and param semantics. It does not mention prerequisites or return values, but output schema exists and purpose is clear. Could be more complete with notes on persistence or undo.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It describes all 4 parameters: context_path as path to IMC, index as mapping index from get_input_mapping_context, and action_path/key as alternative combo. This adds context beyond the schema.

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 removes a key mapping from an Input Mapping Context, and specifies two removal methods. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_key_mapping or set_key_mapping.

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 explains removal by index or by action_path+key combination, and notes that index comes from get_input_mapping_context. It provides clear guidance on how to use, though does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others like remove_mapping_trigger.

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