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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: it opens an edit mode for modification, specifies that changes propagate to all prefab instances, and warns about the need to use 'assets-prefab-close' later. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or what happens if the tool is misused (e.g., on non-prefab objects).

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 and front-loaded, with the first sentence stating the core purpose. Each subsequent sentence adds essential value: explaining the edit mode's impact and providing a critical usage note. There is no wasted text, and the structure flows logically from action to consequence to prerequisite.

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 tool's moderate complexity (editing prefabs with project-wide effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage, and key behavior. However, it lacks details on error handling, success indicators, or the visual/state changes in the editor, which could aid the agent in understanding tool outcomes.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the 'gameObjectRef' parameter with its structure and usage examples. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the GameObject type or editing constraints. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Open prefab edit mode') and target resource ('for a specific GameObject'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'assets-prefab-close', 'assets-prefab-create', and 'assets-prefab-instantiate'. It precisely defines the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('to modify the prefab') and provides clear alternatives by naming 'assets-prefab-close' as the tool to exit editing mode. It also implies usage context by noting that modifications apply to all prefab instances, guiding the agent on when this tool is appropriate versus other asset or GameObject tools.

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