Unity AI Bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavioral traits: the tool creates folders recursively if they don't exist, and it requires a proper shader name. However, it doesn't mention important aspects like whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, what happens on failure, or what the return value looks like.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences that each serve a purpose: stating the core function, describing folder creation behavior, and providing shader guidance. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration.

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 creation tool with 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It covers the main purpose and some behavioral context but doesn't address what happens on success/failure, return values, or error conditions. Given no annotations, more behavioral disclosure would be helpful.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it emphasizes providing a 'proper' shader name and references another tool for finding shaders, but doesn't explain parameter semantics beyond what's in the 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?

The description clearly states the tool creates a new material asset with default parameters and creates folders recursively if needed. It specifies the resource (material asset) and action (create), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other asset creation tools like 'assets-prefab-create' or 'assets-create-folder' beyond mentioning material-specific parameters.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to create material assets with specific shader names. It explicitly references the 'assets-shader-list-all' sibling tool for finding available shaders, giving practical guidance. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives like 'assets-modify' for existing materials.

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