cocos_add_block_input_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool attaches a component and describes its functional effect (blocking input), but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a mutation (likely yes), permission requirements, error conditions, or how it interacts with existing components. The description is minimal and doesn't compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 with two short sentences that directly state the action and effect. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which might help but isn't described), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses parameter semantics, usage context, and behavioral transparency needed for a mutation tool in a complex environment like Cocos.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about the two required parameters (scene_path and node_id), failing to explain what they represent, their format, or how they identify the target node. This leaves parameters completely undocumented beyond their names and types.

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 verb ('Attach') and resource ('cc.BlockInputEvents'), with a specific effect ('Blocks touch/mouse from passing through this node'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on input blocking rather than adding components like animations or scripts, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions the functional effect but doesn't specify prerequisites, context (e.g., for UI elements), or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and sibling list.

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