cocos_add_polygon_collider2d

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 indicates a mutation ('Attach'), implying changes to the scene, but does not describe permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that modifies game objects.

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 very concise with two short sentences, front-loading the main action and providing a key parameter detail. There is no wasted text, but it could benefit from slightly more structure to separate purpose from parameter notes.

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 (8 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the tool's role in the physics system, interaction with other components, or output behavior, despite having an output schema. More context is needed for effective use.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description only explains 'points' as a vertex list, adding minimal semantics for 1 of 8 parameters. It does not clarify the purpose or usage of other parameters like 'scene_path', 'node_id', or physics properties, failing to compensate for the low 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') and the resource ('cc.PolygonCollider2D'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'cocos_add_box_collider2d' or 'cocos_add_circle_collider2d', which likely attach different collider types, so it lacks 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other collider types or related tools like 'cocos_add_physics_body2d'. It mentions the 'points' parameter but does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions for usage.

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