Unity API Communicator MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the optional save behavior, which is useful, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify what happens if no scene is open (when path is omitted), whether closing is reversible, if it requires specific permissions, or potential side effects like losing unsaved changes if save is false. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 extremely concise at just two sentences, with the core purpose stated upfront ('Close a scene') and the optional behavior clearly added. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and optional save behavior, but for a mutation tool that could discard changes, it should ideally include more about consequences, error conditions, or interaction with other scene tools to be fully complete.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (path and save) with clear descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the save parameter's optionality ('Optionally save before closing'), but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Close a scene') and resource ('scene'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like scene_open, scene_save, and scene_setactive by focusing specifically on closing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all scene-related siblings beyond the basic verb.

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 implies usage through 'Optionally save before closing,' suggesting this tool is for closing scenes with or without saving changes. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like scene_save (for saving without closing) or scene_setactive (for switching scenes without closing), nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an open scene.

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