unity_ui_patch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'patch' (implying mutation) and 'narrow property operations,' but does not detail what actions are performed, whether changes are reversible, or any authorization or side effects. The description is insufficient for an agent to assess risks or constraints.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core action and scope. However, it could be slightly expanded with additional context without sacrificing conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, many sibling tools, no output schema), the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'narrow property operations' entails, how patches are applied, or what the agent should expect after calling the tool. The agent lacks enough context to use it 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 description coverage is only 25% (only projectPath has a description). The tool description does not add any meaning to the parameters; it merely repeats their names in the schema. For a 4-parameter tool with low coverage, the description should compensate but fails to do so.

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 that the tool patches existing generated or package-owned UI prefabs with narrow property operations. It uses a specific verb ('patch') and resource ('UI prefabs'), and the scope ('existing generated or package-owned') distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on generation or inspection.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives like unity_ui_generate or unity_ui_resolve. The description implies it is for applying targeted changes to prefabs, but lacks context about prerequisites, fallback tools, or scenarios where patching is preferred over other operations.

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