set_input_action_trigger_behavior

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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only say not-readOnly, destructive, idempotent) by disclosing partial-update semantics ('Only the fields you pass change'), the disk-persistence success condition ('the call succeeds only when it reaches disk'), and the save_error escape hatch. This is exactly the kind of mutation-behavior detail annotations cannot carry.

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-loads the core purpose and stays information-dense with no filler; the inline return shape is justified because no output schema exists. The middle sentences are long and clause-heavy, which slightly weakens scannability.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract ({ action_path, trigger_class, saved, save_error? }), the selection semantics, the persistence guarantee, and the surrounding workflow — 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 each parameter is already documented, including 'Mutually exclusive with trigger_class' and 'Hold triggers only'. The description largely mirrors this (index vs trigger_class, per-type properties) and adds only the practical gloss on hold-to-interact, so baseline 3 applies.

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 precise verb+resource ('Tune HOW an input trigger fires on an InputAction') and enumerates the exact properties being tuned for each trigger type. It clearly separates itself from add_input_trigger, remove_input_trigger, and get_input_action by naming them as prerequisite/followup tools.

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?

Gives concrete workflow context: 'Add the trigger first with add_input_trigger and re-read with get_input_action', and explains that the trigger is addressed either by index or by trigger_class. It does not spell out when to prefer one addressing mode over the other or explicit exclusions, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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