Stage assets for export into a game project and return a non-destructive diff preview, so you can review changes before writing them.
Stage assets for export into the game project and return a non-destructive diff preview.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | default | |
| asset_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Non-destructive' and 'diff preview' are genuinely useful behavioral disclosures, but it's unclear whether 'stage' persists state, whether staging is reversible, what the diff contains, or what permissions are required — all significant gaps for a tool that mutates project state.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The scale-then-preview behavior is stated cleanly, though the sentence is arguably too terse given the tool's complexity.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage mean the description must explain a lot, and it doesn't. It omits how preview relates to writeback_apply, what happens to staged state, and what the diff return looks like.
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 coverage is 0% and neither parameter is documented. The description gestures at 'assets' and 'game project', which loosely maps to asset_ids and project, but it adds no format, default, or array-semantics detail. This does not compensate for the total lack of schema descriptions.
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+resource ('Stage assets for export') plus the distinct behavior of returning a diff preview, which implicitly separates it from writeback_apply. However, it never names the sibling it pairs with, so the differentiation requires the agent to infer the relationship from the names.
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 word 'preview' plus the sibling name writeback_apply implies a preview-then-apply workflow, but this is never stated. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to skip straight to writeback_apply.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.