cocos_add_animation

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 states 'Attach cc.Animation', implying a mutation (adding/attaching a component), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it modifies existing animations, error handling, or what the output looks like. The mention of clip_uuids adds minimal context, but overall, it lacks critical details for a mutation tool.

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 concise with two short sentences, front-loading the main action ('Attach cc.Animation.') and adding a detail about clip_uuids. There's no unnecessary fluff, but it might be overly terse given the tool's complexity. Every sentence serves a purpose, though more structure could improve clarity.

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 (5 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameter meanings beyond clip_uuids, and usage context. The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, but the description doesn't provide enough guidance for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only mentions 'clip_uuids is a list of AnimationClip asset UUIDs', which covers one of five parameters. It doesn't explain scene_path, node_id, default_clip_uuid, or play_on_load, leaving most parameters undocumented. This adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 'Attach cc.Animation. clip_uuids is a list of AnimationClip asset UUIDs.' states the action (attach) and resource (cc.Animation), but is vague about the full scope. It mentions clip_uuids but doesn't explain what 'attach' entails or how it relates to other parameters like scene_path and node_id. It doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like 'cocos_add_component' or 'cocos_create_animation_clip', which might handle similar animation-related tasks.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing node or scene), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'cocos_add_component' for general components or 'cocos_create_animation_clip' for creating clips. Usage is implied only through parameter names, but no explicit context is given.

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