create_hand_interactable

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the tool is a mutation. The description adds context by stating it 'adds components' and 'sets up colliders and scripts', which reveals non-obvious side effects. However, it does not mention potential irreversible changes, performance impact, or required permissions. Given annotations already signal mutation, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 two sentences, each adding value: first states the primary action, second clarifies what it sets up. No redundant words. Optimal length for conveying the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool has 11 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context for the overall behavior. The schema handles parameter details. It could mention interaction types briefly, but the description remains sufficient for basic understanding. Missing usage guidelines are the main gap.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions and defaults. The tool description does not add further detail about parameters beyond the schema. This meets the baseline expectation but does not enhance understanding.

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 it adds hand interaction components to a GameObject, enabling hand gesture responses like pinch-to-grab, poke, or hover. It specifies it sets up colliders and interaction scripts, making the tool's purpose unmistakable. Among sibling tools, none directly duplicate this functionality, so it distinguishes well.

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 (e.g., add_xr_interactor) or any prerequisites (e.g., GameObject must exist). It does not mention when not to use it or what happens if parameters are omitted. The agent lacks context for appropriate invocation.

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