cocos_add_box_collider2d

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', implying a mutation operation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this requires specific permissions, if it overwrites existing colliders, error conditions, or side effects. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core action and key attributes. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, 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 an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 11 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines, detailed parameter semantics, and behavioral transparency, making it minimally adequate but with significant gaps for a mutation tool in a complex environment.

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 descriptions. The description mentions 'size, offset, and physics material', which loosely maps to some parameters (e.g., width/height for size, offset_x/offset_y for offset, density/friction/restitution for physics material), but it does not explain the semantics of the 11 parameters, such as 'scene_path', 'node_id', 'is_sensor', or 'tag', leaving most 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 verb ('Attach') and resource ('cc.BoxCollider2D') with specific attributes ('given size, offset, and physics material'), making the purpose explicit. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_add_circle_collider2d' or 'cocos_add_box_collider_3d', which are similar collider-adding tools, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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, such as other collider types (e.g., circle, polygon) or 3D variants. It also omits prerequisites, like needing a valid scene and node, leaving the agent to infer usage from the required parameters alone.

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