cocos_add_sphere_light

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool attaches a light component (implying a mutation/write operation) and explains some parameter meanings, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether this operation is reversible, error conditions, or what the output looks like. For a 12-parameter mutation tool, this is inadequate.

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 appropriately brief with three sentences that each add value: defining the component, providing examples, and explaining two parameters. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, though the formatting with backticks could be cleaner.

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 (12 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is partially complete. It explains the core purpose and some parameters but misses critical behavioral context for a mutation tool. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but other gaps remain.

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, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It successfully explains the semantics of two key parameters (term and light_range) that aren't obvious from their titles alone, providing meaningful context about lighting terminology and behavior. However, it doesn't cover the other 10 parameters, leaving significant gaps.

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 attaches a cc.SphereLight component, specifying it's a point-light with physical size and providing examples (bulb, lantern). This is a specific verb+resource combination, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling lighting tools like cocos_add_directional_light or cocos_add_spot_light.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like other light types or when not to use it. The description mentions technical details but offers no contextual usage advice for an AI agent.

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