cocos_add_audio_source

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions what the tool does (attaching an audio source) and one parameter detail, but doesn't describe what happens when invoked (e.g., whether it modifies scene state, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or what the output contains). For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for what it does cover, though it could benefit from additional context given the complexity of the tool.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and complex sibling relationships (multiple audio-related tools), the description is insufficient. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't provide enough context about the tool's purpose, usage scenarios, parameter meanings, or behavioral characteristics to guide an AI agent effectively.

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 provides semantic context for one parameter (clip_uuid), leaving the other 5 parameters (scene_path, node_id, play_on_awake, loop, volume) completely unexplained. The description doesn't clarify what these parameters mean or how they affect the audio source behavior.

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 action ('Attach') and the resource ('cc.AudioSource'), and provides specific technical detail about the clip_uuid parameter referencing an audio-clip asset. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_add_audio_file' or explain what makes this audio source component unique.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cocos_add_audio_file' or other audio-related tools. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or any context for selecting this specific audio component over others.

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