cocos_add_rigidbody_3d

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions attaching a rigid body but doesn't explain if this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, how it affects the scene, or error conditions. The focus on parameter semantics leaves behavioral traits largely unaddressed.

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 main purpose, followed by essential parameter details in a compact format. It avoids unnecessary fluff, but the lack of structure (e.g., bullet points or clearer separation) slightly reduces readability, though it remains 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?

For a tool with 15 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers critical parameter semantics but misses behavioral context, usage guidelines, and broader integration details, leaving gaps in overall understanding.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage and 15 parameters, the description adds significant value by explaining key parameters like body_type (with enum values and a warning about bitmask vs. contiguous indexing) and linear/angular_factor (with axis-locking behavior). This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb ('Attach') and resource ('cc.RigidBody (3D)'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_add_rigidbody2d' or other physics-related tools, which prevents 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, such as the 2D version or other physics components. It lacks context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, offering only technical parameter details without usage context.

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