export_unitypackage

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds that the tool runs as a job (non-blocking) and requires confirm=true to proceed. It also notes the underlying implementation. This provides useful behavioral context without contradiction.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the main action. Every sentence adds value, though it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points). No unnecessary information present.

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?

With five parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation for project_path and output_path, does not describe return values or errors, and misses important parameter semantics for version.

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 partially explains asset_paths (project-relative, example) and confirm (needs true). However, it does not explain project_path, output_path, or version, leaving three out of five parameters undocumented in both schema and 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 exports assets as a .unitypackage via AssetDatabase.ExportPackage, running as a job. It specifies that asset_paths are project-relative (e.g., ['Assets/Prefabs']). This distinguishes it from siblings like import_unitypackage and delete_project_asset.

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 its usage for exporting assets as a .unitypackage but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or context for sibling tools are mentioned.

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