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. It effectively discloses that this is a destructive operation (implied by 'Remove'), specifies the default targeting criteria (groups with names starting with 'LightProbeGroup_Auto'), and explains the scope extension via the parameter. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like scene changes or whether the operation is reversible.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise explanation of the parameter's effect. Both sentences are essential, with no redundant or verbose language, making it highly efficient.

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 moderate complexity (destructive operation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the what, when, and how, but lacks details on potential errors, confirmation requirements, or what happens if no groups match the criteria, which would enhance completeness.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the default behavior (removing only auto-generated groups) and how the 'removeAll' parameter alters this, which complements the schema's technical details with practical usage semantics.

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 ('Remove') and target resource ('auto-generated LightProbeGroup GameObjects from the scene'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'lightprobe-analyze', 'lightprobe-bake', or 'lightprobe-generate-grid' which perform different operations on light probes.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (to remove auto-generated groups) versus when to use the 'removeAll' parameter alternative (to remove ALL LightProbeGroups), with clear default behavior and an option for broader scope.

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