editor_add_input_action

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the verb 'Add' with no mention of side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what happens if the input action already exists. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 concise sentence, but it is under-specified for a tool with two parameters and no other context. While it is not verbose, it fails to include necessary details, making it 'adequate but with clear gaps' rather than well-structured.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, side effects, or how this editor API action differs from other similar input-related tools. The overall context is insufficient for an agent to use it confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It does not mention 'name' or 'deadzone' at all, leaving the purpose of 'deadzone' (a non-obvious parameter with a default) completely unexplained. This is a critical 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 clearly states the action ('Add an input action') and the context ('via editor API'), which is specific enough to understand what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish it from similar sibling tools like 'add_input_action' or 'write_input_action', lacking explicit differentiation.

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 'add_input_action' or 'write_input_action'. No context, exclusions, or alternative tool recommendations are provided, leaving the agent without decision-making information.

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