cocos_add_editbox

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 input_mode values and max_length behavior, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read/write operation, permission requirements, side effects, or error handling. For a tool that likely modifies a scene, this is insufficient.

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 that front-loads the core action. Every part earns its place by explaining key parameters. It could be slightly more structured but avoids waste.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description partially compensates by explaining two parameters. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, for a tool that likely modifies a Cocos scene, more context on behavior and usage is needed.

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 explains input_mode values (0=ANY, 6=SINGLE_LINE) and max_length (-1=unlimited), adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema's titles. However, it doesn't cover other parameters like scene_path, node_id, placeholder, or return_type.

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 states the tool attaches a cc.EditBox component, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like cocos_add_button or cocos_add_label, which also attach UI components. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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, context, or comparisons with other UI component tools in the sibling list. Usage is implied only through parameter explanations.

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