cocos_add_terrain_collider_3d

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 attaching a collider, implying a mutation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error conditions, or what the output schema might contain. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 no wasted words, front-loading the core action. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 an output schema (though its content is unknown), the description is incomplete. It does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation or provide sufficient behavioral context for effective use.

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%, and the description only mentions the 'terrain_uuid' parameter. It fails to explain the purpose of other parameters like 'scene_path', 'node_id', 'center_x', 'center_y', 'center_z', and 'is_trigger', leaving most semantics 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 verb ('Attach') and resource ('cc.TerrainCollider'), specifying it requires a cc.Terrain asset UUID. It distinguishes from siblings like 'cocos_add_box_collider_3d' by focusing on terrain, but does not explicitly contrast with other collider types beyond the name.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other collider types in the sibling list), prerequisites, or contextual constraints. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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