プレハブ化

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

Annotations lack destructiveHint or readOnlyHint, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that saving creates files and handles duplicates by sequential numbering (no overwriting). However, it doesn't mention whether the operation is undoable, what permissions are needed, or other side effects. This adds some context but remains incomplete.

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 efficiently packs the core action, default path, conflict resolution, and parameter relationships. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no unnecessary words.

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 3-parameter schema with 100% coverage and the presence of an output schema (reducing description burden for return values), the description covers default behavior, conflict handling, and parameter usage. It is complete for a tool that saves a prefab.

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% (all 3 parameters described in schema). The description adds value by explaining the default path (assets/prefabs/<name>.prefab) and duplicate handling (sequential numbering). While much is already in the schema, the conflict behavior is a useful addition beyond structured fields.

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 saves an entity and its descendants as a .prefab file, equivalent to the hierarchy right-click 'Make Prefab' action. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like 'spawn_prefab' (which loads a prefab) and 'create_entity' (which creates an empty entity).

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 explains default path behavior and conflict handling (sequential numbering on duplicate). It implies usage when wanting to save an entity as a reusable asset. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to avoid this tool or name alternatives, but the context of siblings like spawn_prefab provides implicit guidance.

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