cocos_add_circle_collider2d

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions attaching a collider with physics material, implying a mutation operation, but does not cover critical aspects like whether it modifies existing colliders, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting gameplay), or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely alters scene state.

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. It front-loads the key action and components, making it easy to scan and understand the core purpose immediately.

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 (10 parameters, mutation tool), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It does not explain parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or usage context. While an output schema exists, the description fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use, especially for a tool that likely modifies physics properties.

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 mentions 'radius and physics material', hinting at parameters like radius, density, friction, and restitution, but does not explain the 10 parameters (e.g., scene_path, node_id, offset_x/y, is_sensor, tag) or their purposes. This adds minimal value beyond the schema titles.

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.CircleCollider2D'), specifying the component type and key parameters (radius, physics material). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cocos_add_box_collider2d' by indicating a circle shape, but does not explicitly differentiate from other collider types beyond the name.

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 (e.g., other collider types like box or polygon), prerequisites (e.g., needing a node with a physics body), or exclusions. The description only states what it does, not when or why to use it.

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