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. It discloses the batch operation nature and wildcard support, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or confirmation prompts. 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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first states purpose and parameters, second provides workflow guidance. Every element earns its place, 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 does well by explaining the parameter semantics and providing clear usage guidelines. However, it lacks details on what happens after configuration (e.g., success confirmation, error messages) and doesn't mention potential side effects or dependencies, leaving some contextual 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 'lights' parameter structure. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the name pattern supports wildcards and listing the three target mode options (Realtime, Baked, Mixed), which provides semantic value beyond the schema's technical specification.

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 ('Batch-configure Light bake modes'), resource ('lights in the scene'), and scope ('Each entry specifies a name pattern and target mode'). It distinguishes from sibling 'lightprobe-analyze' by focusing on configuration rather than inspection.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use lightprobe-analyze first to inspect all lights... then decide which lights to change based on the analysis'), providing clear prerequisites and workflow guidance. It distinguishes from 'lightprobe-analyze' by positioning it as the subsequent action after analysis.

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