cocos_add_scene_to_build

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 idempotency, which is a key behavioral trait not obvious from the schema. However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., whether it modifies project files), error handling, or response format. This leaves gaps 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise behavioral note. Both sentences earn their place by adding value (action and idempotency) with zero waste, making it highly 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?

Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and idempotency but misses parameter details, error cases, and output expectations. For a mutation tool in a complex environment (Cocos), this leaves significant gaps for an agent.

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 details. The description adds minimal semantics: it mentions 'UUID' for 'scene_uuid' and implies 'project_path' relates to 'project settings', but doesn't explain what these parameters represent (e.g., file paths, format, constraints). This insufficiently compensates 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 verb ('Add') and resource ('scene to the includedScenes list in project settings'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_set_start_scene' or 'cocos_create_scene', which might involve scene management in different ways.

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 implies usage by mentioning idempotency ('skips if the UUID is already included'), which suggests it's safe for repeated calls. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vs. 'cocos_set_start_scene' for setting a startup scene), nor does it mention prerequisites like project state or scene existence.

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