cocos_add_scale_in

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is an animation tool that runs 'at scene start' and returns specific identifiers (clip_uuid, clip_path, anim_component_id), which is useful. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the node permanently). The description adds some behavioral context but is 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 highly concise and well-structured. It uses three sentences: one for the core purpose, two for parameter examples, and one for return values. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the animation effect and return values but lacks details on parameter usage, error conditions, and behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely modifies scene state, more context on side effects or prerequisites would be beneficial.

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 explains the semantics of `from_scale` with examples (0 and 0.5), which clarifies its role in the animation. However, it doesn't cover other parameters like `scene_path`, `node_id`, `duration`, `delay`, or `rel_dir`. The description adds meaningful value for one parameter but leaves others 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: 'Pop a node in from `from_scale` to 1.0 at scene start.' It specifies the action (pop-in animation), resource (node), and effect (scale transition). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_add_fade_in' or 'cocos_add_slide_in', which likely serve similar animation purposes but with different effects.

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 minimal usage guidance. It explains the effect of `from_scale` values (0 and 0.5) but doesn't indicate when to use this tool versus other animation tools (e.g., for scale effects vs. fade effects) or mention prerequisites like scene setup. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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