add_project_package

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it notes that a backup is created and that confirm=true is required. This is valuable given the destructiveHint false annotation, which might otherwise mislead an agent into thinking no changes are made.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant information. It front-loads the core action and then adds parameter details efficiently.

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?

The description covers the key behavioral aspects (backup, confirm requirement) and parameter constraints for version. Given the lack of output schema and general context, it is reasonably complete, though it could mention that project_path must point to a valid Unity project.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'version' parameter (can be SemVer, git-URL, or file:-path) and the 'confirm' parameter (required). However, no additional meaning is provided for 'project_path' or 'name', which are self-explanatory but lack explicit clarification.

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 (add/change version) and the resource (Packages/manifest.json). It distinguishes from sibling tools like remove_project_package and list_project_packages by specifying the operation.

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 implicitly indicates the tool is for adding or updating packages, and explicitly requires confirm=true. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions.

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