cocos_add_skinned_mesh_renderer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that 'skinning_root_node_id' is an index from model import, which adds some context about the tool's behavior and data requirements. However, it lacks critical details: whether this is a read or write operation (likely a write since it 'Attaches'), what permissions are needed, if it modifies existing components, error conditions, or output format. For a mutation tool with 8 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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: the first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidelines, and the third clarifies a key parameter. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand 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 complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and one parameter but misses behavioral transparency for a likely mutation tool, does not explain most parameters, and relies on the output schema for return values. For a tool with many parameters and no annotations, more guidance on usage, prerequisites, and error handling is needed to be fully helpful.

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 only explains one parameter ('skinning_root_node_id') in detail, clarifying it's a scene-array index and not a UUID. The other 7 parameters (e.g., 'scene_path', 'node_id', 'mesh_uuid') are not mentioned, leaving their purposes and relationships unclear. With low coverage, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to adequately document the parameters.

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.SkinnedMeshRenderer — MeshRenderer driven by a skeleton.' It specifies the verb ('Attach'), resource ('cc.SkinnedMeshRenderer'), and provides a technical definition. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_add_mesh_renderer', which might be a similar but non-skinned alternative, leaving room for improvement in 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 clear context on when to use this tool: 'Use this for humanoid/animal characters imported from GLTF/FBX.' This gives specific use cases and file formats. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'cocos_add_mesh_renderer' for non-skinned meshes, which could help avoid misuse.

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