Two tools with partial schema definitions and inconsistent documentation. Tool 1 (dotcraft_unity_development_status) has a trivial empty input schema and minimal description (67 chars). Tool 2 (unity_execute_csharp) has a more complete schema with 4 parameters, but descriptions are present only via parameter-level annotations, not in a consolidated tool docstring. Neither tool documents output schema structure. No error handling guidance. No pagination, no idempotency markers. The custom attribute-based registration pattern is non-standard for MCP and makes tool definitions harder to verify statically.

• Document the output schema for both tools. For Tool 1, specify: {unityVersion: string, projectPath: string, packageName: string, packageVersion: string}. For Tool 2, specify what the execution result contains (success boolean, output string, error details, etc.).
• Add a tool-level description to Tool 1 that explains when to call it (e.g., 'Call this to verify the DotCraft Unity package is installed and get the current project/Unity version'). Current description is too terse (67 chars).
• For Tool 2, clarify the 'code' vs 'path' trade-off in the description: 'Use code for inline snippets; use path for saved scripts. Exactly one must be provided.' Add validation error guidance.
• Implement a dry-run mode for Tool 2 or require explicit confirmation before executing user-provided C# code. Add a 'dryRun' boolean parameter (default false) that compiles but does not execute.
• Add error handling guidance to Tool 2 description: 'Returns {success: boolean, output: string, error: string}. If compilation fails, error contains the diagnostic message. If execution times out, error indicates timeout duration.'