manage_input_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only lists operations without stating side effects. It does not say whether changes persist to project files, whether it modifies the project's input map directly, or whether any destructive behavior such as removing existing bindings should be expected.

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 short, direct single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main operations and is appropriately sized for a tool whose parameter details live in the schema.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not clarify how the action parameter drives the other parameters, what 'list' returns, or what happens to existing bindings when adding or removing. An agent would need to infer significant operational details.

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 input schema already describes all 5 parameters with 100% coverage, including the action values and the meaning of key, actionName, and deadzone. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema is complete.

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 states a clear set of operations — add, remove, or list — on the specific resource of input actions and bindings, which goes beyond a mere restatement of the tool name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related input sibling tools like game_input_action, but the operation set is reasonably specific.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. With many input-related siblings, an agent gets no help choosing between manage_input_map and tools like game_input_action or game_input_state.

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