Unity AI Bridge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits like the requirement to inspect first, folder restrictions, and mutation intent ('Modify'). However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects (e.g., impact on dependencies), which are important for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 are front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second gives a prerequisite, and the third specifies restrictions. There is minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 complexity (mutation tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and some behavioral aspects, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or full behavioral context, leaving gaps for an agent to operate safely.

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 (assetRef and content) with their types and structures. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or usage tips. 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 ('Modify asset file') and resource ('in the project'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'assets-get-data' (which inspects) or 'object-modify' (which might modify other objects), leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 this tool: 'Use assets-get-data tool first to inspect the asset structure before modifying.' It also specifies exclusions: 'Not allowed to modify asset file in Packages/ folder' and a preference: 'Please modify it in Assets/ folder.' This covers when-to-use, prerequisites, and restrictions clearly.

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