Manage Editor

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

With no annotations beyond title, the description carries the burden. It discloses that deploy_package triggers recompile with no confirmation, restore_package reverts, and undo/redo return affected group name. However, it does not detail side effects for actions like play/pause or permissions needed, leaving gaps.

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 a single, relatively concise paragraph that front-loads the general purpose and lists actions. It is dense but not overly long, though it could benefit from structured bullets or grouping of actions.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not explain return values for most actions. It covers telemetry_status/ping as read-only but omits specifics, and for modifying actions, only undo/redo mention return values. This leaves significant gaps given the tool's complexity.

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 only 25% (only action described). The description repeats the action list but does not explain how tag_name, tool_name, and layer_name relate to specific actions. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving agents unsure of which parameters to use.

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 it controls and queries the Unity editor state and settings, listing read-only and modifying actions. It distinguishes from the sibling manage_prefabs tool for prefab editing, providing a specific verb-resource combination.

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 explicitly states to use manage_prefabs for prefab editing, providing an alternative. However, it does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus other sibling tools like manage_gameobject or execute_menu_item, leaving some ambiguity.

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