cocos_add_spot_light

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('Attach') but doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the attachment fails, or if it modifies existing lights. It lacks details on error handling, side effects, or the output format (though an output schema exists).

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Attach cc.SpotLight') and adds clarifying context ('cone-shaped light (torch, stage spot)') without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (16 parameters, mutation tool), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, usage context, or behavioral traits. While an output schema exists, the description fails to provide necessary context for safe and correct invocation.

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 for 16 undocumented parameters. It only mentions 'cone-shaped light' and analogies, which loosely relate to parameters like 'spot_angle' or 'light_range', but provides no explicit mapping, default behaviors, or units. This is insufficient for a tool with many 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 verb ('Attach') and resource ('cc.SpotLight'), and provides a specific analogy ('cone-shaped light (torch, stage spot)') that distinguishes it from other light types like 'cocos_add_directional_light' or 'cocos_add_sphere_light' in the sibling list. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings beyond the analogy.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other light types or attachment methods), nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring an existing scene or node. It only states what the tool does, not when or why to use it.

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