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 discloses key behavioral traits: the destructive nature ('Destroy'), recursive effect ('all nested GameObjects recursively'), and context ('in opened Prefab or in a Scene'). However, it lacks details on permissions, reversibility, error handling, or confirmation prompts, which are important for a destructive operation.

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 with zero waste: the first states the purpose and scope, and the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core action and efficiently structured, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (destructive operation with 1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, and behavioral context but lacks details on return values or error cases. However, it compensates well with clear guidelines, making it adequate for the context.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'gameObjectRef' parameter with its possible formats. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints, meeting 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 specific action ('Destroy GameObject and all nested GameObjects recursively') and specifies the context ('in opened Prefab or in a Scene'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning 'gameobject-find' as a prerequisite, avoiding overlap with other gameobject tools like 'gameobject-modify' or 'gameobject-duplicate'.

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 provides when to use this tool ('Use 'gameobject-find' tool to find the target GameObject first') and implies when not to use it (e.g., for non-destructive operations like 'gameobject-get-data'). It names an alternative tool ('gameobject-find') for preparation, offering clear guidance on workflow.

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