remove_input_action

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations by explaining that removing a built-in override restores the default on next launch, that this does not disable a built-in action, and that dryRun and expectedHash are supported.

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 two compact sentences with no redundant wording. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the important built-in override caveat and the optional parameters.

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 description adequately covers the tool's core behavior and built-in override nuance, and the output schema means return values need not be explained. However, with 4 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves required parameters like action and projectPath unexplained, which is a meaningful gap for a destructive tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only says 'Supports dryRun and expectedHash' without explaining what dryRun does or what format expectedHash takes, and it says nothing about the required action or projectPath parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a configured input action.' It also distinguishes the operation from disabling a built-in action by explaining that removing a built-in override restores its default on next launch. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like set_input_action and get_input_actions.

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 gives clear context for when removal has a specific effect: removing a built-in override restores its default, and this does not disable a built-in action. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the built-in distinction provides meaningful usage context.

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