unity_import_assetReimport a project-relative Unity asset by path to pick up external file changes; repeated imports are safe and harmless.
Force Unity to reimport an asset (picks up external file changes).
Args: path ('Assets/Textures/logo.png'). Idempotent — reimporting twice is harmless.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Project-relative asset path, e.g. 'Assets/Prefabs/Enemy.prefab' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description's note that 'reimporting twice is harmless' echoes idempotentHint but adds a concrete operational reassurance rather than pure repetition. It doesn't mention the read-only/write nature or side effects on the asset database beyond what annotations cover.
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?
Two short sentences with purpose front-loaded and the idempotency note as a useful suffix. No wasted words.
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?
A single-param tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety/idempotency needs little more. The description covers what and a key behavioral trait; only minor usage guidance against the refresh sibling is missing.
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% and the schema documents the path param with format and example. The description's example is redundant, adding no meaning beyond the schema.
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 (reimport) and resource (an asset), and clarifies the purpose with 'picks up external file changes'. The sibling unity_refresh_assets is adjacent but the description's focus on a single asset vs. a global refresh gives enough distinction.
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 parenthetical 'picks up external file changes' implies when the tool is useful, but there's no explicit when-to-use vs. unity_refresh_assets or unity_list_assets. Usage is inferable but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.