manage_input_map

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

No annotations are provided, placing the full burden on the description. The description only states the tool can add, remove, or list input bindings, but does not disclose side effects (e.g., persistence, whether changes apply immediately or require restart), permissions needed, or any other behavioral traits. For a modification tool, this is insufficient.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is not verbose, but it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming overly long. Given the tool's complexity, the conciseness is good but not exceptional.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how the parameters (action, actionName, key, deadzone) relate to each other or how the tool behaves across different operations. The agent lacks sufficient context to use the tool correctly without relying solely on the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the operations. Thus the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: adding, removing, or listing input actions and bindings. The verb 'manage' combined with the three specific operations ('add, remove, or list') provides a precise understanding of the tool's functionality, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'game_input_action' or 'game_input_state' that deal with runtime input rather than configuration.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, such as needing an open project, or when to use 'game_input_action' instead. The agent receives no context about usage scenarios or exclusions.

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