unity_install_sdk

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses that by default it writes only config files and preserves existing config, and that patchManifest is opt-in. Missing details on overwriteConfig and revertibility, but still good.

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?

Single sentence packed with essential information. Front-loaded and no waste.

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 10 parameters and no output schema, description covers main behavior and key condition (patchManifest) but omits details on other params like overwriteConfig or appId. Could be more complete.

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 coverage is high (80%), so description adds limited value. It only highlights patchManifest behavior, which is partially in schema (default false, preserves existing). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states 'Set up AccelByte Unity SDK config in a Unity project.' It provides a specific verb (set up) and resource (SDK config), and the tool is well-distinguished from its siblings which focus on UI components.

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?

Description gives clear guidance: default writes config files, and patchManifest=true is only for manifest installation. It implies when not to use (e.g., avoid patchManifest unless needed) but does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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