unity_build_avatar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions validation and build but omits side effects, permission requirements, whether it modifies files, or the build output. This leaves significant gaps for an SDK build 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 concise: two sentences and a parameter list. The main action and scope are front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the basic task but lacks details on potential errors, runtime expectations, and prerequisites. Since an output schema exists (not shown), return values may be documented, but the description could still provide more context for a robust tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage and empty defaults. The description adds brief but meaningful parameter descriptions ('Unity project path', 'Root avatar GameObject name'), which compensates for the lack of schema docs. Could be more specific but suffices.

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 triggers a VRC SDK avatar build for local testing, validating the avatar and building the AssetBundle. It distinguishes from publishing tools like unity_publish_avatar.

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 specifies 'local test build, not publish', giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention prerequisites or when not to use it, though the distinction from sibling tools is implied.

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