cocos_add_mouse_joint2d

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'attach' and 'drag-to-target constraint,' implying a mutation operation that likely modifies scene physics, but does not detail permissions, side effects, error conditions, or response behavior. For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: 'Attach cc.MouseJoint2D — drag-to-target constraint, used to pick up bodies with the mouse.' It is front-loaded with the core action and purpose, with no wasted words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and behavioral details. While the output schema may cover return values, the description fails to provide essential context for safe and correct invocation, especially for a mutation tool in a physics system.

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?

The description provides no information about any of the 7 parameters. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only lists parameter names and types without explanations. The description does not compensate by explaining what parameters like 'scene_path', 'node_id', 'max_force', etc., mean or how they affect the joint attachment, leaving parameters undocumented.

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 tool's purpose: 'Attach cc.MouseJoint2D — drag-to-target constraint, used to pick up bodies with the mouse.' It specifies the verb ('attach'), resource ('cc.MouseJoint2D'), and provides a functional explanation ('drag-to-target constraint, used to pick up bodies with the mouse'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_add_distance_joint2d' or 'cocos_add_spring_joint2d', which are also joint-related tools, so it falls short of 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the tool's function but does not specify prerequisites, context (e.g., when in a game development workflow), or compare it to other joint tools in the sibling list. This lack of explicit usage instructions limits its effectiveness for an AI agent.

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