add_input_binding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the core operation ('Add...'), without revealing whether existing bindings are overwritten or appended, what happens if the action doesn't exist, or any validation/error behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 sentence of six words, front-loaded with the verb and object. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundant information.

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 has 6 parameters with rich schema explanations, but the description is minimal and doesn't clarify key usage constraints such as exactly one input source (key, mouse, or joypad) should be specified, or what happens with mutual exclusivity. No output schema or annotations exist, so the description alone doesn't fully complete the picture, though the simple purpose is understandable.

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% for all parameters, with each parameter having a detailed description (e.g., key names, mouse button indices, device IDs). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Add') and names a specific resource ('key/mouse/joypad binding to action'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'editor_add_input_action' (which adds an action) and 'remove_input_action' (which removes an action). The scope is exact and unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for adding key/mouse/joypad bindings to an existing action, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., 'write_input_action') and no exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., action must exist). Usage context is only implied, not stated.

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