add_input_action_trigger

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It lists valid trigger types (e.g., InputTriggerDown) and optional properties with an example, giving some insight into behavior. However, it fails to disclose side effects (e.g., overwriting existing triggers), error conditions, or what the tool does beyond the basic 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 extremely concise: one line for the action followed by clear, well-structured argument documentation. Every sentence adds value, and the parameter list is organized and front-loaded. No redundancy or filler.

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's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers parameter inputs adequately. However, it lacks usage guidance, behavioral details, and does not explain what the tool returns. The coverage is minimal but functional for a simple 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 0%, but the description compensates excellently. It enumerates all valid trigger_type values (including obscure ones like InputTriggerChordAction), explains the properties parameter with an example, and provides context for asset_path (though no description, its purpose is clear from the context). This far exceeds the bare schema definitions.

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 explicitly states 'Add a trigger to an Input Action,' clearly identifying the verb (add) and resource (trigger to an Input Action). However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool 'add_mapping_trigger,' which also adds triggers but on mapping contexts. Without differentiation, an AI agent might not know which to choose.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_mapping_trigger' or 'add_input_action_modifier.' The description lacks any context about prerequisites, preferred scenarios, or what makes this tool appropriate, leaving the agent without clear decision support.

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