Import into a Unity project

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

Annotations only say readOnly=false and destructive=false; the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: dry-run is the default, update overwrites in place but backs up and preserves GUIDs, and when Unity is open only files are copied (no live project mutation). What is missing is what happens on failure or how the bone-by-bone comparison is surfaced. No contradiction with the annotations – the backup step is why 'destructive' is honestly false.

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?

It is front-loaded with the primary action, then the mutation mode, then the read-only mode, which is the right order for an agent choosing a branch. The telegraphic phrasing ('data, atlas, materials, mixes, prefab') is efficient, though the semicolon-separated mode clauses require careful parsing.

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?

For a 19-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the definition covers the core action and its safety posture (dry-run default, backups, GUID preservation) which is the highest-value context. It stops short of explaining the majority of parameters or what the comparison report returns, leaving real gaps for correct invocation.

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 21% across 19 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. Only update, audit, prefab, mixes, and the implicit apply/dry-run flag are touched; format, loop, skin, folder, component, followers, defaultMix, unityVersion, referenceAssets, startingAnimation, premultipliedAlpha and project are left undocumented in both schema and description.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource, 'Imports a .spine into a Unity project with spine-unity,' and enumerates the produced artifacts (data, atlas, materials, mixes, prefab) plus the post-import bone comparison. It never names the close siblings (spine_unity_check, spine_audit, spine_reimport_diff), so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Mode guidance is present and useful: 'Dry-run by default,' 'update: replace in place (backed up, GUIDs kept),' and 'audit: read-only scan (version, data files, API changes).' However, there is no statement of when to pick this tool over the obvious alternatives – notably spine_audit, which overlaps the audit mode, or spine_reimport_diff – and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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