input_map_manage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly explains each operation's effects: e.g., remove_action 'also removes actions persisted in project.godot but not loaded in the live InputMap.' Deadzone constraints and error handling (VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE) are disclosed. The behavior is fully transparent.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-liner and then organized as a list of operations. It uses bullet points and code formatting for readability. While somewhat lengthy, each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy (e.g., ensure_action vs add_action) could be trimmed, but overall structure is effective.

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 complexity (6 operations with many parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers most necessary information. It explains constraints and exception cases (VALUE_OUT_OF_RANGE). However, it does not describe return values for most operations (only list mentions is_builtin), and the session_id parameter is not explained. The output schema likely compensates for return values, but the description could be more complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by detailing all operation-specific parameters (e.g., include_builtin, deadzone, event_type, keycode). However, the top-level schema parameters (op, params, session_id) are not explicitly described; the agent must infer that params holds the nested details. The description adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema but misses some top-level context.

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 starts with 'InputMap actions and bindings (keyboard, mouse, gamepad). Persisted to project.godot.' This clearly identifies the tool's domain and resource. It lists specific operations (list, add_action, etc.) that precisely define what the tool does. The resource form hint 'godot://input_map — prefer for active-session reads' further clarifies its purpose. No sibling tool overlaps with this specific input management functionality.

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 usage guidance, such as preferring the resource form for active-session reads and explaining default vs built-in actions. For add_action, it notes 'not a key-repeat delay,' helping avoid misuse. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare it to alternative tools (e.g., node_manage for other editor resources). The guidance is present but not exhaustive.

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