cocos_add_spine

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a prerequisite but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this operation is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing components), requires specific permissions, or has side effects like modifying scene state. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context 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 concise—two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the core action and immediately provides essential prerequisite information, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (7 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema (which may cover return values), the description is incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral details, and context about when to use versus siblings, making it inadequate for safe and effective use despite the output schema.

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 does not explain any of the 7 parameters (e.g., what 'scene_path' or 'node_id' refer to, the purpose of 'skeleton_data_uuid', or how 'default_skin' works). The mention of 'sp.Skeleton (Spine)' hints at the resource but adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema's titles.

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 action ('Attach sp.Skeleton (Spine)') and resource (a Spine skeleton to a node), distinguishing it from general 'add' tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'cocos_add_dragonbones' (another animation system) beyond the Spine-specific reference.

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 explicit prerequisite guidance ('Use cocos_add_spine_data to import assets first'), which is crucial for correct usage. It does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cocos_add_animation' or 'cocos_add_dragonbones', but the prerequisite context is clear and actionable.

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