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 that the GameObject is created 'in opened Prefab or in a Scene,' which adds context about the environment. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this operation is destructive (likely yes, as it creates new objects), permission requirements, error conditions (e.g., invalid names or positions), or what happens if the parent reference is invalid. The description is minimal and lacks depth 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?

The description is two sentences and front-loaded with the main purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, but the second sentence could be more direct (e.g., 'Provide position, rotation, and scale to set transform properties efficiently'). Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 complexity (7 parameters, mutation tool, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value (e.g., success/failure, GameObject reference), error handling, or interactions with sibling tools like 'gameobject-modify'. For a creation tool with multiple parameters and no structured output, more guidance is needed to ensure proper usage.

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 all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'position', 'rotation', and 'scale' as parameters to provide for efficiency, but doesn't explain their semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., why reducing operations matters). No additional syntax or format details are given, so it meets the baseline for high schema 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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new GameObject'), specifying the context ('in opened Prefab or in a Scene'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'gameobject-duplicate' or 'assets-prefab-create' by focusing on creating a new GameObject rather than duplicating or creating prefabs. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'gameobject-modify' or 'gameobject-set-parent' in terms of when to use creation versus modification.

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 implies usage by suggesting to provide 'position', 'rotation', and 'scale' to reduce operations, which hints at efficiency considerations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gameobject-duplicate' for copying existing objects or 'assets-prefab-instantiate' for prefab instances. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity.

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