remove_input_action

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

As annotations are absent, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only restates the operation. It does not mention side effects, persistence, prerequisites, failure behavior, or the scope of removal (e.g., project settings, runtime input map).

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 that directly states the operation. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal but lacks important context about the input action (e.g., where it is defined, how it relates to other input tools, or whether removal is permanent). The presence of many sibling tools with similar names amplifies the need for additional context.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'action' with a description ('Input action name to remove'), so the description adds no new information. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 ('Remove') and the resource ('an input action'), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from generic tools by naming the specific object type.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings such as 'editor_remove_input_action', 'write_input_action', or 'add_input_binding'. The description fails to specify the context (e.g., runtime vs editor) or any alternatives.

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