game_input_action

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention that runtime changes are temporary, or any side effects like affecting gameplay. The tool's destructive nature (e.g., removing actions) is not highlighted.

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 short sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It could include more detail without being verbose. For a tool with 4 parameters, it lacks essential context.

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 lacks an output schema and the description doesn't mention return values. It doesn't cover all operations' purposes or the effect on the runtime environment. Given the complexity and zero annotations, the description is incomplete.

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 100% with descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra context; it summarizes the action's function but doesn't clarify parameter interactions (e.g., 'key' is only for add_action).

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 'Manage runtime InputMap actions and strength' clearly indicates the tool operates on the InputMap at runtime and involves actions and strength. However, it could be more specific by listing the exact operations (set_strength, add_action, remove_action, list) to distinguish from sibling 'manage_input_map'.

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 like 'manage_input_map'. It does not specify that it is for runtime modifications (not persistent) or when to avoid using it. Sibling tools suggest overlap, but no differentiation is given.

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