cocos_add_box_collider_3d

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

The description provides minimal behavioral information. With no annotations, it doesn't disclose whether this is a read or write operation (though 'Attach' implies mutation), what permissions are needed, whether it modifies existing components, or what the output contains. It lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics that would help the agent use it correctly.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place by specifying the component type and dimensionality.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema coverage) and the presence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't compensate for the lack of parameter documentation or behavioral context. While the output schema may describe return values, the description fails to explain how to use the tool effectively, leaving the agent poorly equipped to invoke it correctly.

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%, meaning parameter titles provide no semantic context. The description doesn't explain any parameters, their relationships, or what values are appropriate. For 9 parameters (2 required), this leaves critical gaps—for example, what 'scene_path' and 'node_id' refer to, or how size/center coordinates are interpreted.

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 resource ('cc.BoxCollider (3D AABB shape)'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from 2D siblings like 'cocos_add_box_collider2d' by specifying '3D', but doesn't differentiate from other 3D collider tools (e.g., sphere, capsule) beyond the shape type.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, when to choose this over other collider types, or what context it's appropriate for. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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