create_enhanced_input_action

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only states that it creates an asset and lists parameters. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting behavior), return value details, permission requirements, or potential errors. The description is minimal and leaves the agent without a clear picture of the tool's behavior beyond its immediate action.

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 one-line summary followed by a clear args list and an example. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary verbosity. The structure is logical, though the args list could be formatted more neatly but it's effective.

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?

The description provides a KB reference for additional details, which helps, but it lacks explicit information about the return value (despite having an output schema) and any side effects like asset overwriting or required permissions. Given that it's a creation tool, more context on expected outcomes and potential failure modes would be beneficial, but the KB reference mitigates some gaps.

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 description adds significant meaning to the parameters, particularly value_type, which is explained with its C++ equivalents (bool, float, Vector2D). It also clarifies the purpose of action_name and path. Despite the schema having no descriptions, the text compensates well by providing practical context and an example. However, it doesn't elaborate on path format or default behaviors.

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 it creates an Enhanced Input Action asset, specifying the UE5 modern input system context. It lists the key arguments, making the tool's function evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_blueprint_enhanced_input_action_node, which also deals with Enhanced Input, though that one is for blueprint nodes. The purpose is clear but not fully distinguished from related 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the mention of 'UE5 modern input system' provides context, it doesn't explain when to choose this over create_input_mapping or add_blueprint_enhanced_input_action_node. There are no explicit usage scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites mentioned beyond a KB reference.

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