unity_asset_import

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action but omits critical details: whether the import overwrites existing assets, what happens to references, required permissions, or if the import updates the AssetDatabase. The port parameter hints at parallel-safe routing but doesn't clarify the tool's behavior in multi-instance scenarios. The description fails to add meaningful behavioral context.

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 concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the key action. While it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for prerequisites), the brevity is justified given the tool's simplicity. Every word earns its place, and there is no extraneous information.

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 moderate complexity (parameter for parallel-safe routing, two required paths) and the absence of an output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure, asset reference) and any side effects (e.g., immediate import vs deferred). It currently provides no return information or post-import behavior. This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's outcome.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, with each parameter already well-documented (sourcePath, destinationPath, port). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description correctly reinforces the 'parallel-safe routing' purpose of the port parameter, but this info is already in the schema.

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 tool's action: importing an external file into the Unity project as an asset. It uses a specific verb ('Import') and resource ('external file', 'asset'), and it effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like unity_asset_create_prefab (which creates prefabs from existing assets) or unity_asset_list (which lists assets). The purpose is unambiguous and directly aligns with the tool name.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as unity_asset_create_prefab or unity_asset_instantiate_prefab. It lacks explicit context for when-not to use it, prerequisites, or post-conditions. The port parameter is described but without explaining when it's necessary or how to obtain it beyond referencing unity_select_instance. This gives the agent insufficient decision-making context.

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