easyar_create_build_settings_helper

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the main side effect (creating/overwriting a script) and mentions the 'overwrite' parameter, but does not clarify whether it modifies existing Build Settings, requires Unity to be open, or handles errors (e.g., missing sample). The behavioral impact is under-specified.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core functionality without extraneous words. It front-loads the action and includes key optional behavior, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description is too terse. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., success message, path to generated script), error conditions (e.g., invalid sampleId), or prerequisites (e.g., Unity project must exist). The complexity warrants more detail for an AI agent to use it confidently.

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 baseline is 3. The description minimally adds beyond the schema: it reiterates the 'optional' build target switching and implies the script is 'Unity Editor' related. It does not provide additional context like format expectations or relationships between parameters (e.g., how sampleId ties to list_samples output).

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's purpose: creating a Unity Editor script that adds an EasyAR sample scene to Build Settings and optionally switches the build target. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'matching EasyAR sample scene' ties it to the sibling easyar_list_samples, distinguishing it from other create helpers.

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 implies usage when one wants to add a sample scene to Build Settings and optionally change the build target, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over other easyar_create_* siblings or what prerequisites are needed. The context is clear enough for a basic use case, but lacks differentiation and exclusion criteria.

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