set_input_action_properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose side effects, error cases, permissions, or what happens when conflicting properties are set. The behavior is minimally described as 'set properties' without nuance.

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 (three lines) and front-loads the purpose. Each sentence serves a purpose: stating the action and listing parameters with helpful examples. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool is relatively simple, and the output schema exists (so return values are covered). However, the description lacks context about when to use this tool, error handling, or dependencies. Given the complexity and sibling tools, it is minimally adequate but could include more guidance.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining asset_path as 'Path to the InputAction asset', value_type as a convenience shortcut with enumerated options (Boolean, Axis1D, etc.), and properties as a dict of property names to values with an example. This goes beyond the bare 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 'Set properties on an Input Action' with a specific verb and resource. It lists the arguments, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_input_action_property (singular) or other input action modifiers, but the distinction is implied.

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_trigger or create_input_action. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context for invocation.

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