unity_repair_package_cache

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses destructive actions: deletes stale folders and removes lock entry, and the refusal behavior with editor open. However, it does not mention potential data loss or that the package must be a git dependency, which would improve transparency.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second gives usage context, third details behavior and a constraint. Information is front-loaded and efficiently 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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers use case, behavior, constraints, and parameter roles. It could mention what happens after repair (e.g., re-launch editor) or offer a note on when not to use it, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value for 'force' with a safety note, but for 'packageName' and 'projectPath' it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description complements without redundancy.

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: 'Force a clean re-resolve of a stale UPM git-dependency package.' It specifies the verb (repair/resolve) and the exact resource (package cache). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on UI generation or example 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?

The description provides specific error scenarios where the tool should be used: 'packages-lock.json hash mismatch' or 'Failed to rename ... EPERM' error. It also notes a condition: refuses to run with editor open unless force=true. Missing explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough.

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