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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool performs 'AssetDatabase.Refresh() at the end', which is a valuable implementation detail not obvious from the name or schema. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like breaking references or requiring specific permissions, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 perfectly concise with three focused sentences: one stating the core function, one revealing implementation behavior, and one providing usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, and the information is front-loaded effectively.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the rename use case, revealing the Refresh() behavior, and guiding to a sibling tool. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, return values, or what happens to metadata/references during moves, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage through the schema alone, with no value added by the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('move', 'rename') and resources ('assets at paths in the project'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from 'assets-find' for asset discovery, showing awareness of sibling tools.

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 ('for asset rename') and when to use an alternative ('Use assets-find tool to find assets before moving'). It also implies a workflow sequence, offering clear contextual direction.

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