Unity AI Bridge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's purpose as a setter operation, implying mutation. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether changes are undoable, how it handles invalid object references, or what happens to the Unity Editor UI. The description adds basic context but misses important behavioral traits for a mutation tool.

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: the first states the purpose, the second provides essential usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core function and efficiently references the sibling tool without 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but functional. It covers the basic purpose and a key prerequisite, but lacks details on error handling, side effects, or what visual/editor state changes occur. Given the complexity of editor interaction, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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%, with the parameter 'select' well-documented in the schema as an array of ObjectRef with instanceID. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, but the schema itself provides complete documentation, meeting the baseline for high 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 action ('Set the current Selection') and target ('Unity Editor'), specifying it operates on 'provided objects'. It distinguishes from sibling 'editor-selection-get' by being the setter counterpart. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other object-manipulation tools like 'gameobject-modify' or 'object-modify'.

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 explicit guidance to use 'editor-selection-get' first to obtain current selection, establishing a clear workflow. It doesn't mention when NOT to use this tool or alternatives for selection management, but the sibling reference gives adequate context for its specific role.

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