cocos_add_distance_joint2d

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a creation/mutation action ('Attach') but doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., modifies scene state), permissions, error conditions, or response format. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description itself lacks critical behavioral context for a 12-parameter 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—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to the tool's purpose.

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 (12 parameters, mutation tool, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, usage context, behavioral details, and doesn't leverage the output schema to clarify returns. For a physics joint tool with many parameters, this minimal description is insufficient.

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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what parameters like 'scene_path', 'node_id', or 'distance' mean, their units, constraints, or relationships. With 12 parameters entirely undocumented in both schema and description, this is a severe gap.

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 the specific resource ('cc.DistanceJoint2D'), with a brief functional explanation ('keeps two bodies a fixed distance apart'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the exact joint type, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other joint tools like 'cocos_add_fixed_joint_2d' or 'cocos_add_spring_joint2d'.

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 (e.g., requiring physics bodies), context (e.g., for 2D physics simulations), or exclusions. It's a standalone statement with no usage context.

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