cocos_add_mesh_collider_3d

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: the convex parameter requirement based on rigid body dynamics and backend limitations. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or what happens on attachment (e.g., overwriting existing colliders). The information is useful but incomplete for a 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important usage notes. It uses two concise sentences with no fluff, though the formatting with backticks and dashes could be slightly cleaner. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient.

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 8 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which alleviates need to describe returns), the description is incomplete. It covers the convex parameter well and provides critical physics context, but misses semantics for other parameters and broader behavioral details like error handling or side effects, leaving gaps for a complex tool.

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 only explains the 'convex' parameter's semantics and implications, ignoring the other 7 parameters (scene_path, node_id, mesh_uuid, center_x/y/z, is_trigger). This leaves most parameters undocumented, failing to adequately address the low schema coverage.

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 cc.MeshCollider') and identifies the specific resource (a mesh collider component). It distinguishes from siblings like 'cocos_add_box_collider_3d' by specifying mesh-based collision. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all sibling collider tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

The description provides explicit usage guidance with 'IMPORTANT' notes on when to set convex=True (for DYNAMIC rigid bodies) vs convex=False (for static ground geometry). It directly addresses physics backend constraints (PhysX/Bullet) and differentiates based on body type, offering clear when-to-use criteria.

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