set_input_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'add or modify' without explaining whether modifications overwrite existing mappings, if it is idempotent, what happens on error, or any side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, earning its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify return values or side effects. It does not mention error handling, idempotency, or whether the modification is applied immediately. Essential context for a mutation tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds minimal context ('and its event mappings') beyond the schema. It does not clarify the 'additionalProperties' pass-through or event structure, but baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Add or modify an input action and its event mappings'. It specifies the verb (add/modify), resource (input action), and scope (event mappings). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'add_input_action' (which likely only adds) and 'remove_input_action'.

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 versus alternatives such as 'add_input_action' or 'get_input_actions'. It lacks context on prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.

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