gameobject-component-modify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions modifying component fields/properties but does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or whether modifications are immediately applied. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Three concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action, then provide a benefit and a usage tip. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the purpose and prerequisite, but lacks details on return values, error handling, and behavioral scope. With no output schema, more context on outcome would be helpful.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond noting direct modification, not clarifying the nested structure of gameObjectRef or componentRef beyond what the schema provides.

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 it modifies a specific component on a GameObject, and distinguishes from sibling tools like gameobject-component-add (adds) and gameobject-component-destroy (destroys) by noting direct modification without wrapping in GameObject structure.

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 advises to use 'gameobject-component-get' first for inspection, providing a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative tools for different tasks, such as gameobject-modify for the entire GameObject.

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