unity_component_batch_wire

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It correctly indicates this is a batch write operation (mutating references) and mentions efficiency, but does not disclose side effects, atomicity, error handling (e.g., partial failures), or whether it supports undo. This is adequate for a batch operation but lacks depth.

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 and front-loaded with purpose. The first sentence states the core function, the second provides context and examples. It is concise without being terse, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating guidelines from examples).

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 (batch operation with nested array of objects) and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand the use case and parameters. It covers the 'what' and 'why' but could benefit from noting return value or success/failure behavior. The context signals (no output schema, nested objects) make the description reasonably 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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing usage context and examples that help understand the references array structure, especially the combination of fields (path, instanceId, propertyName, etc.) and the optional nature of some. The port parameter is explained as for parallel-safe routing, which is helpful beyond the schema description.

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 wires multiple object references in a single call, with specific examples (UI manager to panels, enemy AI to waypoints) that distinguish it from sibling tools like unity_component_set_reference (which presumably handles single references) and unity_set_object_reference. The verb 'wire' and resource 'object references' are specific and informative.

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 explicitly mentions efficiency for setting up many references at once and provides concrete use cases (wiring UI manager, connecting enemy AI). It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context and examples imply it's for batch operations, differentiating it from single-reference tools.

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