unity_component_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears responsibility. It mentions support for both built-in and custom scripts, but does not disclose what happens if the component already exists, side effects (e.g., triggering lifecycle events), or any runtime restrictions.

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?

Single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it could be slightly more structured without becoming verbose.

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 simple add-component operation with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate. It lists supported types but misses edge cases or error conditions.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds examples for componentType (e.g., 'Rigidbody', 'MyNamespace.MyScript') and clarifies gameObjectPath as path or name, but mostly reiterates schema info.

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 'Add a component to a GameObject' with specific verb and resource, and lists examples of supported types (built-in and custom scripts). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like unity_component_remove.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when a component already exists or prerequisites like the GameObject needing to exist. Usage is implied but not guided.

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