cocos_add_dragonbones_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the return structure ({dragon_asset_uuid, dragon_atlas_uuid, textures, dir}), which is helpful, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a read or write operation (likely a write/mutation), what permissions are needed, whether it overwrites existing assets, error conditions, or side effects. For an import tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one detailing the return structure. It's front-loaded with the core action. However, the second sentence could be integrated more smoothly, and there's room to add brief usage context without losing conciseness.

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 (5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks explanations of parameter semantics, behavioral details like mutation effects or error handling, and doesn't clarify how this tool fits within the broader Cocos workflow. The return structure hint is helpful but insufficient for full understanding.

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 for all 5 parameters. It only implicitly references parameters through the asset types mentioned (_ske.json, _tex.json, _tex.png), but doesn't explain what each parameter does, their relationships, or provide examples. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema titles already indicate.

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 ('Import DragonBones assets') and specifies the resource types (_ske.json + _tex.json + _tex.png). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cocos_add_dragonbones' by focusing on data import rather than general DragonBones addition. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'cocos_add_spine_data' which serves a similar purpose for different asset types.

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 not to use it, or how it relates to similar tools like 'cocos_add_spine_data' for Spine assets. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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