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 a key behavioral constraint ('Can't destroy missed components'), which is valuable. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, side effects on the GameObject, or what happens if components are in use. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 and key constraint, the second provides usage prerequisites. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently 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 a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose, constraints, and prerequisites but lacks details on behavioral outcomes (e.g., what is returned, error cases, or impact on the scene). For a mutation tool, this leaves room for improvement.

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 (e.g., no examples of valid component references or formatting tips). 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 ('Destroy'), target resource ('components from target GameObject'), and scope ('one or many'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'gameobject-component-get' (retrieval) and 'gameobject-destroy' (destroys entire GameObject). It avoids tautology by elaborating beyond the tool name.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance by naming specific prerequisites: use 'gameobject-find' to find the target and 'gameobject-component-get' to get component details first. It also implicitly distinguishes from alternatives by focusing on component destruction rather than other operations.

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