set_input_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose a key behavior: it modifies both project settings and the live editor InputMap. However, it does not explicitly warn that 'replace' means all existing bindings for the action are overwritten, nor does it mention side effects, permissions, or undo behavior.

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 conveys the core action and target without any filler. Every word contributes to meaning, making it highly concise.

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 complexity (nested event schema, replacement semantics, deadzone parameter) and lack of output schema or annotations, the description is too minimal. It omits explanations of event types, deadzone behavior, and the consequences of replacement, leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the description adds no parameter information. The events array has a complex nested structure with four event types, but the description provides no guidance on how to construct bindings, making it entirely reliant on the schema, which is not sufficient for this complexity.

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 ('Create or replace') and resource ('InputMap action's bindings'), plus scope ('in project settings and in the live editor InputMap'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_input_actions (read-only) and simulate_action (simulation).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for configuring input actions rather than reading them or simulating them, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions.

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