Publishes the selected draft variant at final quality, applies automatic textures, and imports it into the active Unity scene.
Publish the selected draft at final quality with automatic textures and engine import.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | Yes | ||
| quality | No | ||
| position | No | ||
| study_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at side effects ('automatic textures', 'engine import') but says nothing about reversibility, permission requirements, what happens to unselected variants, or rate/limit behavior 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the core action is stated first. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the missing detail elsewhere.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It gives a useful behavioral hint about automatic textures and engine import but leaves parameter meanings and safety profile entirely uncovered.
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?
There are 4 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them (study_id, index, quality, position). Worse, 'at final quality' could mislead the agent into thinking quality is fixed when it is actually an optional parameter.
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?
States a verb (Publish) and a resource (selected draft at final quality), which is more than a tautology. However, the name 'choose_variant' implies selecting among variants while the description talks about publishing a draft, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like publish_blend or publish_prepared.
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 when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of the alternative tools (get_variants, create_variants, publish_blend, publish_prepared) the agent should consider. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.