input_setup_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose key behavioral aspects: whether existing bindings are overwritten or appended, whether the action is created if nonexistent, or any side effects on the project. The list of supported keys is helpful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 concise, with a clear header line, optional category, and a structured Args section. Each sentence adds value (purpose, category, parameter details). No redundant information is present.

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 tool has 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers input parameters adequately. However, it lacks critical context such as whether the action is created if missing, if bindings append or replace, and any error conditions. For a setup tool, these are important for complete usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: project_path, action_name, and keys. It provides examples and lists supported keys and modifiers, adding significant meaning beyond the schema's type and title fields.

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 sets up an input action with key bindings in the project's input map. It uses a specific verb ('Set up') and identifies the resource ('input action with key bindings in the project's input map'). This distinguishes it from siblings like input_list_actions which only list actions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether an action must exist first, or whether the tool creates the action if missing. No references to alternatives or when-not-to-use are given.

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