input_map

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, so the description doesn't need to reiterate. However, it adds value by showing that certain actions (remove_action, add_action, add_event) are mutating and require specific parameters. No annotation contradiction.

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 extremely concise, using a clear bullet-like format with parentheses for optional parameters. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the overall structure is easy to parse.

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?

With 6 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description adequately covers how to invoke the tool correctly. It explains the action-based dispatch and the parameter dependencies, leaving no critical gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds crucial structural information: it shows which parameters are required or optional for each action, and provides example values (e.g., KEY_SPACE). This goes beyond the flat schema definition.

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 'Input action management' and lists specific sub-actions (list, add_action, remove_action, add_event) with their parameters. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audio, config, etc., which focus on different engine subsystems.

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 context on when to use each sub-action by listing required and optional parameters. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use this tool, the sibling tools are completely unrelated (e.g., audio, config), so the usage context is unambiguous.

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