Unity AI Bridge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool's scope (Prefab or Scene) and a prerequisite, but fails to describe critical behavioral traits: whether this operation is destructive/reversible, permission requirements, error conditions, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Both sentences earn their place: the first states what the tool does, the second provides important usage guidance. Minor improvement could come from slightly more structured formatting.

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 a mutation tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and basic usage context but lacks critical information about behavioral consequences, error handling, and return values. The 100% schema coverage helps, but for a tool that modifies scene hierarchy, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain the GameObjectRef structure or worldPositionStays implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 ('Set parent GameObject') and target ('list of GameObjects in opened Prefab or in a Scene'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'gameobject-modify' or 'gameobject-create' which might also affect parent-child relationships, missing full sibling distinction.

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 context for usage ('in opened Prefab or in a Scene') and explicitly references a prerequisite tool ('Use gameobject-find tool to find the target GameObjects first'), giving practical guidance. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings, preventing a perfect score.

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