Attach Script to GameObject

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), so the description isn't carrying that burden. It adds genuine behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the operation is Undo-able, it requires prior compilation, and it fails with a hint on class-not-found. It doesn't cover what happens if the class already exists on the object.

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?

Extremely tight: one sentence for purpose, one for the precondition, one line of args, one line for the failure mode. The core action is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 2-param mutation with no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, and failure behavior, which is close to complete. The main remaining gap is the lack of a stated distinction from unity_add_component.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the same 'Player'/'PlayerController' examples. The description adds nothing beyond that baseline, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Attach a MonoBehaviour class to a GameObject'. An agent immediately knows this attaches a script component to an existing object. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling unity_add_component, which is the nearest ambiguous neighbor.

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?

Gives a real precondition ('Script must be compiled — no compile errors in console') and a failure path, which is useful context. However, it never states when to prefer this over unity_add_component or what to do if the GameObject path is invalid, so the when-to-use guidance is only implied.

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