unity_gameobject_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a new GameObject, which implies mutation, but does not mention side effects (e.g., overwriting existing objects with same name) or any state changes. It adds the 'port' parameter detail about parallel-safe routing, which is useful, but lacks behavioral depth like error handling or limits.

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, front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence lists optional attributes efficiently. No unnecessary words, but could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for parameters).

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description provides a basic overview but omits details like return value (likely the created GameObject), error cases, or how parent path resolution works. It does not compensate for the missing output schema.

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 57%, so the description must compensate. It lists key parameters (primitive type, parent, transform) and adds context for the 'port' parameter with a usage note ('Target Unity instance port... ALWAYS include this parameter'). However, it does not explain all parameters (e.g., name, position fields) fully, but the schema provides basic descriptions for most.

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 ('Create a new GameObject in the scene') and specifies the resource ('GameObject'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like unity_gameobject_delete and unity_gameobject_duplicate by focusing on creation, and lists customizable aspects (primitive type, parent, transform) for clarity.

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 implies use when a new GameObject is needed, but does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like unity_asset_instantiate_prefab (for prefabs) or when not to use this tool. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., scene must be open) or exclusions.

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