gameobject-component-destroy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It mentions the destructive nature ('destroy') and a limitation ('Can't destroy missed components'), but lacks details on side effects (e.g., undo, permissions) or error handling. For a destructive tool, more transparency would be beneficial.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 sibling tools and the complexity of gameobject operations, the description provides enough context to use the tool correctly, including references to other tools. However, it could be more complete by mentioning that components must exist or what happens on failure, but overall it is adequate.

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. The description adds no further parameter semantics, only mentions the workflow. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (destroy components) and the target (target GameObject). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gameobject-find and gameobject-component-get by specifying the prerequisite workflow. The phrase 'Can't destroy missed components' adds specificity.

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 instructs to use gameobject-find and gameobject-component-get before this tool, providing clear workflow guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the implied context is sufficient for most agents.

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