editor

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, indicating a mutating operation, but the description adds little behavioral context. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether play/pause/stop affect the whole editor, require a connected Unity instance, or have irreversible effects). The select explanation is the only behavioral detail provided.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and an action list. It avoids fluff and uses a clear format for the select parameter. It could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but it is efficient and readable.

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 mutating tool with no output schema and minimal annotations, this description is incomplete. It lacks return behavior, side effects, and full action semantics, making it insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool across all actions. The select case is detailed, but other actions remain 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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It explains that select uses path (single) or paths (comma-separated multi) and lists action values, giving some meaning. However, it does not clarify parameters for other actions (e.g., whether state or play require arguments, or what project_path expects), leaving ambiguity.

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 identifies the tool as 'Editor state/control' and enumerates specific actions (state, play, pause, stop, select, project_path), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_playtest or scene manipulation tools. However, it is slightly vague about what each action does beyond select, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lists actions but does not explain when to choose editor over sibling tools (e.g., run_playtest for play mode, scene for scene changes), nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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