figma_generate_unity_prefab

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'staged' and 'statically verified' which hints at a multi-step process but does not reveal that this tool writes files, can overwrite existing assets, or has destructive potential via overwrite flags. The side effects are undisclosed.

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 a single sentence that is immediately comprehensible and front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary words 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 a rich schema and output schema, the tool is complex (11 parameters, file-generation) and has no annotations. The description is too brief to cover essential context like file-writing behavior, overwrite risks, or workflow position. The agent is left to infer crucial operational details from the schema alone.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning or context to parameters, thus the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Generate') and a specific resource ('UGUI Direct YAML Prefab snapshot') with qualifiers ('staged', 'statically verified') that clearly identify the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like figma_prepare_design and figma_verify_unity_prefab by focusing on the generation step.

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 does not mention the prerequisite of a packet from figma_prepare_design or that it should precede figma_verify_unity_prefab. While the schema's packet_id parameter references figma_prepare_design, that is structured data, not the description's contribution.

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