godot_configure_input_action

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

Annotations already indicate mutating behavior (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects (e.g., saving to project.godot), the default behavior of replace_existing, or any irreversibility concerns. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enrich the agent's understanding of runtime behavior beyond the annotations themselves.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently captures the core function. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It is as concise as possible while remaining informative.

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 configuration tool with side effects (e.g., potentially saving to project settings, modifying bindings), this description is incomplete. It does not mention the scope of changes (e.g., per-action events), the ability to remove actions, or any cautionary notes about overwriting existing configurations. The annotation and schema provide some context, but the description leaves important behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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?

The description offers zero insight into the parameters, and the schema description coverage is 0%. While the JSON Schema contains detailed property descriptions, the tool description itself does not compensate for the low coverage. Given the parameter schema is complex (nested objects, multiple event types, defaults), the lack of any description-level parameter guidance is a significant gap.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Add, remove, or modify' and clearly identifies the resource ('input actions and event bindings'). It is not a tautology and gives a clear sense of the operation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'godot_get_input_actions' or 'godot_simulate_input' beyond the obvious configurational intent, so it doesn't achieve the top score.

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, no context about typical use cases, and no mention of related tools. It simply states what the tool does without any hint of when it is appropriate or how it differs from siblings. It is not misleading, but it is entirely free of usage direction.

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