game_input_action

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full transparency burden, but 'manage' is vague. It does not disclose whether changes are ephemeral runtime-only modifications, whether removing actions has side effects, or what the list action returns.

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 with the important 'runtime' qualifier front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though a second sentence enumerating the supported operations would improve usefulness without hurting conciseness.

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?

This is a multi-mode tool with four possible actions and conditional parameter requirements, but the description does not explain mode-specific parameters, return behavior, or persistence semantics. With no output schema, the agent is left to infer invocation details from parameter names alone.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds little beyond repeating 'actions and strength', and it does not clarify which parameters are required for each action mode.

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 identifies a specific resource, 'runtime InputMap actions and strength', which helps distinguish it from static project-level input configuration. However, the verb 'manage' is generic and does not by itself convey the concrete operations like add_action, remove_action, or set_strength.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as manage_input_map for project-level input configuration or game_input_state for reading input state. The description provides no explicit usage context, conditions, or exclusions.

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