Manage Packages

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations, including the possibility of destructive actions (remove with force) and async job polling for status. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds context about dependent checking and embedding behavior. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with sections and bullet points, front-loading the overall purpose. It is concise given the tool's complexity, though a few redundant phrases could be trimmed. Each sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, many sub-actions), the description covers all major behaviors, including read-only vs. write operations and async polling. It omits details like error handling, but with an output schema present, return values are not required to be described.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond grouping parameters to actions (e.g., job_id for status). Since schema already covers meaning, the baseline of 3 applies.

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's purpose: 'Manage Unity packages: query, install, remove, embed, and configure registries.' It uses a specific verb-resource scope and lists distinct sub-actions, distinguishing itself from sibling tools which focus on debugging, code execution, or scene management.

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 guidance on when to use each sub-action (e.g., 'QUERY (read-only)' vs 'INSTALL/REMOVE') and includes caveats like 'use force=true to override' for removal. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state prerequisites, though the context makes usage clear.

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