input_map

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description mentions actions that modify input map (add, remove). However, the description does not elaborate on behavioral details such as side effects or permanence of changes beyond what the annotation implies. It adds little extra transparency beyond the annotation.

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, using a compact format to convey action-parameter relationships and examples. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (action list) is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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 complexity with multiple sub-actions and parameters, the description covers all aspects: listing actions, adding/removing actions, adding events with valid event types and examples. Since an output schema exists, return value documentation is handled elsewhere, making this description complete for its purpose.

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 100% (baseline 3), but the description adds significant value by grouping parameters per action (e.g., 'add_action (action_name -> deadzone=0.5, project_path)'), showing dependencies and defaults, which is not apparent from the schema alone. This makes parameter usage clear and contextual.

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?

Description starts with 'Input action management' and then details specific actions (list, add_action, remove_action, add_event) with required and optional parameters, clearly stating what the tool does. It distinguishes between sub-operations and explains event types, providing a specific verb-resource 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?

Description shows required vs optional parameters for each action, giving clear usage context. While it doesn't explicitly state when-not to use this tool or compare with siblings, the sibling tools are unrelated, and the sub-action listing effectively guides the agent on which action to perform.

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