create_input_action

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the asset is saved and the call succeeds only when it reaches disk, plus the returned saved/save_error fields signal a possible partial-failure state. It does not state required permissions or overwrite behavior if the asset already exists.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool creates, then the value_type decision, then the follow-up tools, then the return contract. No filler sentences, though the inline Returns block is slightly dense and could be terser.

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 create tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return shape ({ action_name, action_path, value_type, saved, save_error? }), the persistence semantics, and the follow-on calls. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is absent.

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 3 baseline is met by the schema alone. The description adds genuine meaning for value_type by mapping each option to a use case (Bool for a button, Axis1D for a trigger/scroll, Axis2D for stick/WASD, Axis3D), which the schema does not.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (create an Enhanced Input InputAction asset) and frames it precisely as 'the verb half of a keybinding -- what the player does, independent of which key does it', which separates it from key-mapping siblings like map_input_action. An agent can distinguish it from get_input_action and set_input_action_value_type without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: choose value_type up front, then bind via map_input_action or add_mapping_to_context; changing type later is set_input_action_value_type; flags go through set_input_action_flags. Both the next step and the alternative tools for adjacent concerns are named.

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