Create GameObject

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

Annotations declare the mutation/safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the operation uses Undo and is revertible, and results are not saved until unity_save_scene runs. That persistence and undo behavior is not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded: a purpose sentence, a compact Args line, a Returns line, and a follow-up action. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, key args, the return shape ({ path, name }), and a required follow-up (save). It's largely complete; only the prefab-vs-primitive routing gap keeps it from being fully self-sufficient.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's Args line restates them with defaults but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Create an empty GameObject or a Unity primitive') and even enumerates the supported primitive types. However, it doesn't differentiate from the similar sibling unity_instantiate_prefab, which also creates objects, so an agent can't fully route by reading this alone.

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?

It gives a workflow cue ('Save with unity_save_scene when done') that implies changes are not persisted until saved, and mentions Undo reversion. But it never states when to use this versus alternatives like unity_instantiate_prefab, leaving selection to inference.

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