unity_ui_generate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses two operation modes (live editor vs batch), specific refusal triggers, and the ability to override failures. This is transparent for a complex tool, though it omits side effects like file overwriting.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action, and packs significant detail without fluff. It could be slightly more structured for readability, but it is efficient.

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 no output schema and 9 parameters, the description covers the main action, modes, and refusal conditions but does not mention return values (e.g., success signal or generated prefab path), leaving a gap for the agent to infer behavior.

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 44%, so description must compensate. It adds context on refusal conditions linking to override parameters (force, allowWarnings, etc.) but does not explicitly map all parameters like bridgeUrl or editorPath. The added value is moderate but not sufficient to fully bridge the 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 specifies the tool generates a Unity uGUI prefab, distinguishes between live editor and batch modes, and clearly differs from sibling tools like 'unity_ui_kit_build' which targets UI Toolkit.

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 warns about conditions under which the tool refuses (validation warnings, compile errors, unverified classes, verification failures) and mentions overrides, providing clear guidance on when it may fail. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like 'unity_ui_preflight' for pre-generation validation.

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