cocos_add_slide_in

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this creates an animation ('animate the entrance') and returns specific identifiers, but doesn't mention whether this modifies scene state permanently, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or any rate limits. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but lacks depth 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 extremely efficient with three focused sentences: purpose statement, parameter guidance, and return value specification. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good coverage for the animation behavior and one parameter, but leaves most parameters unexplained. For a tool that likely modifies scene state (animation creation), more behavioral context would be helpful, though the return value specification partially compensates.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 7 parameters, the description adds significant value by explaining 'from_side' parameter semantics (enum values and purpose) and clarifying the relationship between node position and animation. However, it doesn't cover the other 6 parameters (scene_path, node_id, distance, duration, delay, rel_dir), leaving them 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 specific action ('Slide a node in from off-screen at scene start') and identifies the resource ('node'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying this is for slide-in animation, unlike other animation tools like 'cocos_add_fade_in' or 'cocos_add_bounce_in'.

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 for when to use it ('at scene start') and includes a crucial prerequisite ('set the final position first, then call this to animate the entrance'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for different animation types.

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