unity_ui_kit_build

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses force=true, regeneration of existing prefabs, and dual behavior (live editor/batch). Could mention side effects like overwriting prefabs but this is implied. Good transparency overall.

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?

Two sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with main action and scope. Perfectly concise and well-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?

No output schema, so description should clarify return values or side effects. It assumes agent knows rebuilding outcome. Missing details on error handling, prerequisites beyond 'after C# changes', and what constitutes success. Adequate but not fully 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 low (33%) with only projectPath described. The description does not explain bridgeUrl or editorPath beyond mentioning 'live editor bridge', which is insufficient for an agent to know their purpose or format. Additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 'Rebuild all AGS core kit prefabs' with a specific path and force=true, distinguishing it from sibling tools like unity_ui_generate or unity_ui_patch by focusing on regenerating existing core prefabs after C# changes.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use after plugin C# changes to regenerate existing prefabs', giving a clear trigger. It also explains behavior based on environment (live editor bridge vs batch mode). No explicit alternatives are mentioned but the context from siblings suggests differentiation.

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