Manage GameObject

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description lists 'delete' as an action, which aligns. However, the description does not add further behavioral context such as which actions are irreversible, permission requirements, or side effects beyond what annotations already provide.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the main function and exclusions. However, the lack of parameter description means it is not fully informative, reducing efficiency.

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, the tool has 27 parameters with no schema descriptions and the description does not explain parameter usage per action. For a tool with high complexity, the description is incomplete, missing essential guidance on how to invoke each action.

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?

The schema has 27 parameters with 0% description coverage. The tool description names the actions but does not describe any parameter semantics, leaving the agent to guess which parameters apply to each action. This is a critical omission for a complex tool with many parameters.

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 performs CRUD operations on GameObjects and lists the specific actions (create, modify, delete, duplicate, move_relative, look_at). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like find_gameobjects and manage_components, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-not-to-use guidance, directing to use find_gameobjects for searching and manage_components for component management. This clearly differentiates the tool's scope from alternatives, even though manage_components is not in the sibling list.

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