Execute C# in Tuanjie

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read/write and destructive, but the description adds useful concrete context: 'This can mutate the project or editor state.' It also reveals the official Bridge execution path, which is behavior beyond what the structured annotations express.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the operation, the primary parameters, and the side-effect warning. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 code-execution tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and destructive annotations, three sentences are insufficient. It omits how logs are captured, what execution_mode editor/play changes, how record_game_view results are surfaced, and what output or response the agent should expect.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate by explaining the 6 parameters. It only clarifies that script or script_path should be provided; summary, capture_logs, execution_mode, and record_game_view are left entirely to name inference.

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?

States a clear verb ('Executes'), a specific resource ('inline C# or an existing .cs file'), and the execution channel ('official Bridge'). This distinguishes it from siblings targeting shaders, assets, packages, or custom tools, and it explicitly names the two accepted input forms.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus unity_script, execute_custom_tool, or other siblings. The only directional advice is to provide script or script_path, which is invocation detail rather than usage-selection context.

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