Tuanjie Asset Manager

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the listed actions like delete, modify, move, and duplicate are consistent with that. The description adds the useful note that action-specific parameters are passed through unchanged, but it does not disclose side effects or what happens to asset metadata.

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 compact: an opening summary, an exhaustive action list, and one valuable pass-through note. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids empty filler.

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?

This is a high-complexity dispatcher with 15 actions, an open schema, and no output schema, so per-action parameter guidance or examples are essential. The description only lists action names and gives no details on required arguments, return values, or failure behavior, leaving most actions underspecified.

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 0% and the schema only declares the action enum while allowing additional properties. The description mentions that action-specific parameters are passed through unchanged, but it names none of them, leaving the agent unable to construct parameters for actions like create_batch, edit_batch, or ensure_meta_integrity.

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 manages project assets and enumerates the supported operation families and 15 concrete actions. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like unity_shader, unity_package, and unity_scene, which target other resources.

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 gives clear context: use this tool for creating, importing, modifying, searching, and inspecting project assets. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool covers generic asset management, so the usage context is sufficient.

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