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 mentions the context ('in opened Prefab or in a Scene') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a destructive operation, permission requirements, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. The description adds some context but lacks comprehensive behavioral details.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by two concise prerequisite sentences. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential guidance without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and well-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 tool's complexity (modification operation with 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, and context, but lacks details on behavioral outcomes or error handling. For a mutation tool without annotations, it could be more comprehensive, but it provides a solid foundation.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format nuances or constraints for 'componentNames' or 'gameObjectRef'). 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 specific action ('Add Component to GameObject') and resource ('GameObject in opened Prefab or in a Scene'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'gameobject-component-destroy' or 'gameobject-component-modify'. It provides precise context about where the operation applies.

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 names two alternative tools to use first ('gameobject-find' to find the target GameObject and 'gameobject-component-list-all' to find component type names), providing clear prerequisites and guidance on when to use this tool versus others. This helps the agent understand the workflow sequence.

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