cocos_add_bounce_in

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates an animation (implied mutation) and returns specific identifiers ({clip_uuid, clip_path, anim_component_id}), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover error conditions, side effects (e.g., if it modifies existing animations), or performance implications, leaving gaps 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 efficiently structured in three focused sentences: first states the purpose, second provides tuning guidelines, third specifies return values. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description partially compensates by explaining two key parameters and the return format. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it lacks details on error handling, side effects, and the semantics of undocumented parameters, making it incomplete for safe agent 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 adds meaningful semantics for 'overshoot' (tuning range 1.05-1.3, effects of values) and 'duration' (default 0.5s, adjustment for UI vs. games), covering 2 of 6 parameters well. However, it doesn't explain 'scene_path', 'node_id', 'delay', or 'rel_dir', leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 adds a 'spring-like overshoot' entrance animation (specific verb+resource), distinguishing it from siblings like 'cocos_add_fade_in' or 'cocos_add_scale_in'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling animation tools, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose bounce over other entrance effects.

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 implied usage guidance by suggesting default values (0.5s duration for UI, halve for games) and tuning ranges for 'overshoot', which helps inform when to adjust parameters. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., compared to 'cocos_add_pulse' or other animation siblings) and doesn't mention prerequisites like required scene or node setup.

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