unity_hub

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: it states that editor installs use the Hub CLI while project creation uses the installed Editor directly. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-organized with a clear overview, bullet-list of actions, and default paths note. It is concise without unnecessary repetition, though slightly verbose in listing actions that are already in the schema enum.

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's complexity (8 parameters, multiple actions) and lack of output schema, the description covers the high-level functionality and action types. However, it does not describe return values or error conditions, which would enhance completeness for an AI agent.

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 100% with all 8 parameters described. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema, such as noting that projectPath is used with projectName for project creation, but does not provide additional semantic depth for most parameters.

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 the tool controls Unity Hub for project creation, installation management, and project opening. It lists all 8 actions explicitly, distinguishing it from sibling tools like editor_control which deal with the Unity Editor itself.

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?

Description explains that the tool works independently of the Unity Editor connection and notes default installation paths. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like editor_control or file_operations, though the context makes it reasonably clear.

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