Unity AI Bridge

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions the prefab is saved and can replace the GameObject, but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether the operation is destructive to the original GameObject, error conditions, or what happens if the path exists. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first states the core functionality, second provides a usage tip. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized, though could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., side effects, error handling), return values, or prerequisites beyond the basic usage tip. Given the complexity of creating assets in a game engine context, more guidance is needed.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain path validation or GameObject reference formats). Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Create a prefab') and resource ('from a GameObject in the current active scene'), with the prefab being saved to a specified path. It distinguishes from siblings like 'assets-prefab-save' or 'assets-prefab-instantiate' by focusing on creation from a scene GameObject, but doesn't explicitly contrast with all 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?

It provides clear context by specifying the GameObject must be in the current active scene and recommends using 'gameobject-find' first. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., vs. 'assets-prefab-save' for existing prefabs) or mention alternatives among siblings.

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