object-modify

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Modifies' suggesting destructive action, but does not elaborate on persistence, side effects, permissions, or reversibility. The description is adequate but lacks depth for a mutation tool.

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 no extraneous information. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides usage guidance, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 there is no output schema and the tool has nested object parameters, the description could benefit from explaining return behavior or providing examples of the diff structure. However, the guidance to use 'object-get-data' partially compensates. The description is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes the two parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what is in the schema (e.g., how to construct the diff). Baseline of 3 is appropriate as description adds no value over schema.

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 tool modifies a Unity Object's fields and properties, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'object-get-data' and 'gameobject-modify' by focusing on direct modification of any Unity object.

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 instructs to use 'object-get-data' first to inspect the object structure before modifying. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names a specific sibling tool as prerequisite, effectively differentiating from alternatives.

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