Tuanjie GameObject Manager

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description aligns by mentioning delete and modify among supported actions. It also adds the useful pass-through note for action-specific parameters. However, it does not disclose per-action side effects, required state, or return behavior.

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 a clear summary, but the long 'Supported actions' list duplicates the enum already present in the input schema. The pass-through note is valuable, but the enumeration adds little beyond what structured data already conveys.

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 tool with 16 actions, no output schema, and no per-action parameter documentation. The description is sufficient for selecting the tool, but not for correctly invoking any specific action, since required parameters and return semantics are almost entirely unspecified.

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 description only says that action-specific parameters are passed through unchanged. It lists the action enum values that are already present in the schema, but provides no meaning, names, or formats for the additional parameters an agent would need to actually call each action.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's scope: creating, modifying, finding, and inspecting GameObjects and components. The resource domain is explicit and distinct from sibling tools like unity_shader, unity_asset, and unity_scene.

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 clear context by naming the exact resource types and listing 16 concrete actions, so an agent can infer when this tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the domain is specific enough to route most GameObjects tasks here.

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