Sync Unity

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false, which aligns with the mutating refresh/bump behavior. The description goes beyond annotations by specifying the return contract ('sync clean' / compile errors / timeout message) and the ordering/atomicity of bump before sync.

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 and well-structured: a one-sentence overview, then bullet-like usage notes, then return outcomes. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description states the three possible return outcomes. It also covers optional behavior, ordering, and atomicity. For a tool with three optional parameters, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 low (33%), and the description compensates by explaining resolve and bump semantics, including their relationship. It does not add detail for timeout, but the schema already describes that parameter; overall the description adds meaningful meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb+resource construction: 'Unified Unity reload: trigger Refresh (+ optional Resolve)' and clearly states the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself by presenting a consolidated sync workflow, unlike sibling tools that target narrower actions like await_compile or reconnect_unity.

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 explicit situational guidance: 'resolve=True: call Client.Resolve() first (use after package.json change)' and explains that bump implies resolve. It does not name alternative sibling tools or state exclusions, but it provides clear context for when to use key options.

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