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 for behavioral disclosure. While it indicates this is a duplication operation (implying mutation), it doesn't describe permissions needed, whether duplicates inherit properties, what happens to the original objects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first states the tool's function, the second provides usage guidance. There's no wasted language, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and workflow guidance but lacks details about behavioral consequences, return values, or error handling. Given the complexity of duplicating GameObjects (which could involve inheritance, positioning, or component copying), the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 the single parameter 'gameObjectRefs' with its structure. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but with complete schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('Duplicate') and target resource ('GameObjects in opened Prefab or in a Scene'), providing specific context about where the operation applies. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gameobject-create' or 'assets-copy', which could also create or copy objects.

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 provides clear usage guidance by specifying that 'gameobject-find' should be used first to locate target GameObjects, establishing a prerequisite workflow. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear for typical usage.

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