remove_input_action_modifier

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Remove' implies mutation, it does not describe side effects, error conditions (e.g., out-of-bounds index), permission requirements, or return value. The only behavioral hint is to check indices via get_input_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?

Two concise sentences with the core action first and a helpful tip second. No redundant words, and the structure is optimal for quick parsing.

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?

For a simple two-parameter removal tool, the description covers the basic operation and provides a usage hint. However, without behavioral details (error handling, side effects) and no output schema, it leaves gaps for a fully informed agent decision.

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%, so parameter descriptions are absent. The description only clarifies that 'index' refers to the modifier index, but does not explain 'asset_path' (likely the input action asset). This adds minimal value beyond the raw schema.

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 action ('Remove') and the target resource ('modifier from an Input Action by index'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_input_action_modifier and remove_input_action_trigger.

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 a direct pointer to use get_input_action to see current modifier indices, which helps the agent know how to prepare input. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions.

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