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 states the tool modifies objects, implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or what happens to unspecified fields. The mention of using 'object-get-data' first hints at complexity but doesn't fully disclose behavioral traits like safety or limitations.

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 and includes a practical guideline in a second sentence. Both sentences are relevant and earn their place, making it efficient without waste, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation tool with complex nested parameters, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and a key guideline but lacks details on behavior, return values, or error cases. It's complete enough for basic use but has clear gaps for safe and effective operation.

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 both parameters ('objectRef' and 'objectDiff') with their types and structures. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying modification requires prior inspection, which doesn't enhance understanding of the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Modify') and target ('specified Unity Object'), specifying it allows direct modification of fields and properties. It distinguishes from sibling 'object-get-data' by mentioning it as a prerequisite, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other modification tools like 'gameobject-modify' or 'assets-modify'.

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 to use 'object-get-data' first to inspect the object structure before modifying, which is a clear prerequisite. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus other modification tools (e.g., 'gameobject-modify' or 'assets-modify') or any exclusions, leaving some ambiguity in context.

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