cocos_add_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('Attach'), but doesn't disclose permissions, side effects, error handling, or what the output schema contains. The auto-wrapping note is useful but insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first states purpose with example, second explains auto-wrapping, third gives resource ref syntax. It's front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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?

For a mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description does well on parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, permissions). The output schema means return values needn't be explained, but other gaps remain.

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%, but the description adds significant value: it explains 'type_name' format (full type name with example), clarifies 'props' auto-wrapping behavior (list[3]->Vec3, int->__id__ ref), and specifies resource ref syntax ({"__uuid__": "<uuid>"}). This compensates well for the schema gap, though it doesn't detail 'scene_path' or 'node_id'.

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 ('any cc component'), with a specific example ('cc.RigidBody2D'). It distinguishes from many sibling tools that add specific components (like 'cocos_add_rigidbody2d') by being generic, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with the generic 'cocos_add_script' or 'cocos_add_animation'.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many specific sibling tools (e.g., 'cocos_add_rigidbody2d' vs. using this with 'cc.RigidBody2D'). It mentions auto-wrapping for 'props', but doesn't clarify prerequisites, error conditions, or alternatives.

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