input_manage

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but does not. It omits whether operations are mutating, require a running game, or are destructive. The enum values hint at actions like hold/release, but the description itself provides no 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 short but under-specified. The two sentences are not efficiently informative; the first is vague, and the second offloads detail to another tool. Not well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (many enum operations, nested params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It lacks explanation of return values, error conditions, prerequisites, or how to construct the params object for each operation.

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% but the schema descriptions are minimal ('Operation in the input branch', 'Parameters for the selected operation'). The tool description adds no extra meaning, leaving the agent to infer param usage from the enum values or by calling godot_catalog.

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 'Godot input operations' is vague and essentially restates the tool name. It fails to specify what type of input management is performed (e.g., simulation, monitoring). Sibling tools like `input_manage` and `godot_catalog` are not differentiated.

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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The instruction to call `godot_catalog` for the operation tree is a pointer but does not clarify usage context or exclude other tools.

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