cocos_add_motion_streak

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Attach', implying a mutation that adds an effect to a node, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether the effect is reversible, performance impact, or how it interacts with existing components. The example hints at visual behavior but lacks operational details.

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—just one sentence with an example—and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place by stating the tool's purpose and providing illustrative context without any fluff or redundancy.

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 (8 parameters, mutation tool), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameters, behavioral implications, or output (though an output schema exists, reducing some burden). For a tool that likely modifies scene state, more detail on effects 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%, meaning none of the 8 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters like 'scene_path', 'node_id', or the color/fade settings, leaving their purposes and formats completely unexplained. This fails to compensate for the schema gap, resulting in poor parameter understanding.

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.MotionStreak'), with an illustrative example ('trail effect. For sword trails, shooting stars.') that helps visualize its use. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_add_animation' or 'cocos_add_particle_system_2d', which might also create visual effects, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.

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 a general context ('trail effect') and examples ('sword trails, shooting stars'), which implies usage for dynamic visual trails. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other visual effect tools in the sibling list), prerequisites, or any 'when-not-to-use' scenarios, resulting in minimal actionable guidance.

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