cocos_add_capsule_character_controller

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 describes the component's shape and kinematic nature, but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify if this is a destructive operation (attaching likely modifies the node), what permissions are needed, whether it can be undone, or how it interacts with other components. The height clarification is useful but insufficient 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 extremely concise and well-structured: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides comparative context, and the third clarifies a critical parameter detail. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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's complexity (12 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and one parameter nuance well, but lacks behavioral transparency for a mutation tool and leaves most parameters unexplained. The output schema existence helps but doesn't compensate for the missing behavioral context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 12 parameters, the description adds significant value by clarifying the 'height' parameter semantics ('distance between the two sphere centers' vs 'total capsule height'). However, it doesn't explain the other 11 parameters (like 'scene_path', 'node_id', or physics-related settings), leaving most parameter meanings 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 specific action ('Attach'), the exact component ('cc.CapsuleCharacterController'), and its nature ('capsule-shaped kinematic character'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'cocos_add_box_character_controller' by noting that capsules are 'more common than box for humanoid characters' and provide 'smoother wall sliding'.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by comparing it to the box alternative and explaining its advantages for humanoid characters. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention any prerequisites beyond the required parameters, which are documented in the schema.

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