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 discloses key behavioral traits: it performs AssetDatabase.Refresh(), waits for Unity compilation, and reports results after completion. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., breaking references), error handling, or permissions required, which are important for a destructive operation.

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 sized with two sentences. The first sentence states the core action and key behaviors, while the second provides usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose, though the second sentence could be slightly more concise.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the main action and some behavioral context (refresh/compilation), but lacks details on error cases, return values, or integration with other tools beyond 'script-read'. Given the complexity, more completeness 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 50% (only 'files' has a description). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain the 'requestId' parameter or provide additional context for 'files' (e.g., path formats, wildcards). Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema covers half the parameters.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('script file(s)'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling 'script-read' by mentioning it as a prerequisite, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other deletion tools like 'assets-delete' or 'gameobject-destroy'.

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 explicit guidance to use 'script-read' first, indicating a recommended workflow. However, it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus other deletion tools (e.g., 'assets-delete' for non-script files) or mention any exclusions or alternative scenarios.

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